The UN should be disbanded [Archive] - Ultimatecarpage.com forums

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 07:20 AM

it woudl be a crime.........

BUT if nations are going to use undemocratic tricks to ensure the person they want is their Ambassador to the UN then the ideals of the organisation are lost.

I dont' understand how a leader who publicly makes much about democracy makes such a blatantly autocratic move.

is this some 3rd wolr dnation. Some rogue African or Asian state ?
Nope, sadly, not :( ---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4735529.stm

Radio news just reported that President Bush has by-passedCongress adn made the appointment whilst they were in recess and unabel to discuss further or vote on it :(

Am I missing some odd part of US politics ? In the UK there can't be acts liek this even durgin recesss, parliament would be recalled. : confused :

Dino Scuderia

08-01-2005, 07:31 AM

This whole scenario is overblown, John Bolton is just one person that makes up the body of the UN.....it's not like he's THE ruling member.

Bush has constitutional authority to appoint who he wants in the position...and by doing so during recess he gets it done so things can move on without the partisan bullcrap.

Pando

08-01-2005, 07:53 AM

He said Democrats had forced him to bypass Congress, using "shameful delaying tactics" to prevent a vote. :eek: :eek: :eek: What won't he do? (and get obviously get away with) :eek:

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 07:57 AM

I guess it depends Dino on where you live.....
How do you think those countries we've "freed" feel when they look at that and try to understand the difference with the Mullahs who are supposed to be so bad ?

Why did Congress raise concerns about this if it's "overblown" ?

Seemingly it's not been done since 1948. I'm presuming it had to happen back then in light of the turn-around in recognising the Isreali state instead of the "trusteeship" everyeon had been agreed on before. .. Anyone with US history give an insight into the 1948 appointment ???

PS: When did the word Democracy in the dictionary ahve the entry "partisan bullcrap" "D

scottie300z

08-01-2005, 07:59 AM

It doesnt really matter how important of a role the guy is to feel, the president still underminded the democratic process. But The U.S isnt truly a democracy anyways, its a republic.

Wouter Melissen

08-01-2005, 08:04 AM

But The U.S isnt truly a democracy anyways, its a republic.
One is derived from greek and the other from latin, but both refer to the same thing; the people are the government. The US being a republic refers to the fact that you have a president as oposed to a monarchy for instance where a king is in charge.

scottie300z

08-01-2005, 08:10 AM

Dino Scuderia

08-01-2005, 08:25 AM

Wouter Melissen

08-01-2005, 08:31 AM

Well, i always thought that democracy was rule directly be the people, and the republic was the people vote for representation. Democracy is like the greeks where they represented themselves, Republic like romans where there was a representing senate.
In its purest form you are correct, but that lasted for only a very short period of time. The Roman version of democracy was not quite what we would call democratic. Representation is what currectly is referred to as being democratic.

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 08:35 AM

What are you trying to say with this absurd statement and what does it have to do with the appointment of John Bolton?
absurd ?

let me explain ...
YOU said "Bush has constitutional authority to appoint who he wants in the position...and by doing so during recess he gets it done so things can move on without the partisan bullcrap."

The Mullahs had "constitutional authority" in their countries.
The Mullahs are widely criticised for being excessive in their acts and not beign waht the people want.

By your own words. This act has gone against the procedures to voters in the US think they bought in to. ie that there is a Congress which approves the Presidential will and acts as a balance to prevent abuse. It isn't he "norm".

So hence my comment to have those who perhaps blindly support a leader to consider how that leaders words on OTHERS can sometimes apply tho themself.

SO can you explain to me why it IS absurd and why it DOESNT have anything to do with a railroaded appointement ?

scottie300z

08-01-2005, 08:38 AM

Ah ok, that makes me remember some things. Direct and indirect democracy. Ok my education is finally coming back to me now. And a repbulic would be an indirect form.

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 08:50 AM

Ah ok, that makes me remember some things. Direct and indirect democracy. Ok my education is finally coming back to me now. And a republic would be an indirect form.
Yes.
Dependant on a written constituion and laws which protect the rights of the minority and individual.
Always good for a "debate" on what a democracy really is given that it nay population of more than a few hundred it becomes impossible to have the "people" vote on all subjects. So then they vote for representatives who they hope and expect to vote according to their wishes and to build consusnus of their voters wants. So by the time you build a national government the differnce between REAL republic and real democracy are minor to all but the lawyers !! Many computer-futurists predict a true democracy when everyeon has the ability to register a vote on all topics. Given the lack of UNDERSTANDING by most on ever referendum Iv'e been involved in I think they missed haldf of the equation and that is understanding the issues to be abel to make the choice !!!!

Wouter Melissen

08-01-2005, 09:00 AM

Given the lack of UNDERSTANDING by most on ever referendum Iv'e been involved in I think they missed haldf of the equation and that is understanding the issues to be abel to make the choice !!!!
It's one of the biggest misconceptions that referenda make a country more democratic. Instead they block all progress, because of the people's natural tendency to be conservative. A characteristic we are even faced with every time we change something.

Bob

08-01-2005, 09:00 AM

How is this news? Does anyone remember his first election? Can you say 'fixed'? Does anyone remember how the man who usually can't string together a coherent sentence made it through Harvard with a 4.0 gpa? I believe when someone comes into power purely through the virtue of being rich, along with other rich people aka oil companies, etc that is known as an oligarchy. And now the Patriot Act makes it effectively illegal to oppose them! well, at least we only have three more years-- is anyone taking bet on if he can ram through an amendment for a third term?

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 09:58 AM

It's one of the biggest misconceptions that referenda make a country more democratic. Instead they block all progress, because of the people's natural tendency to be conservative. A characteristic we are even faced with every time we change something.
Or they're fixed before the vote.
Scotlands first vote for independance was a resounding YES by all those who voted. BUT because of apathy, it meant that it was JUST less than 50% of the population so didnt' go through !!
Most "democracies" are currently being run by parties/leaders who polled less than that :(

Wouter Melissen

08-01-2005, 10:03 AM

Or they're fixed before the vote.
Scotlands first vote for independance was a resounding YES by all those who voted. BUT because of apathy, it meant that it was JUST less than 50% of the population so didnt' go through !!
Most "democracies" are currently being run by parties/leaders who polled less than that :(
They can't help that though, it's the people who need to vote. Most parties' opinions only differ in detail these days, making it almost unnessecary to vote. A government's success or failure is usually determined by the economic situation, which can hardly be influenced by the government. A possible exception is the current spending frenzy in the United States, which is completely overcooking the country's economy.

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 10:09 AM

I think I agree Wouter on econimic issues.

But on national and legal issues I don't. The "voice of the people" is important. eg. IF there was a valid way of measuring the democratic will of the British public then we woudlnt' have 70mph speed limits and "dangerous speed" would be severly punished rather than just a few mph over an arbitraryily low posted limit :(

It woudl actually help seperate out the issues in parliaments as at the moment all voted members fo the parliament can't share the views of ALL the people ALL of the time.

Dino Scuderia

08-01-2005, 11:11 AM

absurd ?

let me explain ...
YOU said "Bush has constitutional authority to appoint who he wants in the position...and by doing so during recess he gets it done so things can move on without the partisan bullcrap."

The Mullahs had "constitutional authority" in their countries.
The Mullahs are widely criticised for being excessive in their acts and not beign waht the people want.

By your own words. This act has gone against the procedures to voters in the US think they bought in to. ie that there is a Congress which approves the Presidential will and acts as a balance to prevent abuse. It isn't he "norm".

So hence my comment to have those who perhaps blindly support a leader to consider how that leaders words on OTHERS can sometimes apply tho themself.

SO can you explain to me why it IS absurd and why it DOESNT have anything to do with a railroaded appointement ?

Recess Appointments are constitutional, used by our very first president...Clinton made 140 Recess Appointments....why is this one so different?

Is it because it gives you another excuse to bash America by comparing to Mullahs?

Bolton is not really a permanent UN Ambassador due to this appointment, when Congress reconvenes in '07 it will go back to the floor for vote.

I'm not saying these type appointments are necessarely a good thing in every case.

Furthermore, he can be rejected outright by the UN credentials committee if they see fit.

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 12:40 PM

hmm there are appointments and appointments.
This is ostensibly THE most important international appointment AND had already raised concerns in Congress.

Not "bash", educate :D

Seriously, though. Do you NOT see the point about how absurd it is for a world leader to proclaim "freedom" and "democracy" who THEN bypasses the intent of the constitution to get what he wants ? I ask because it helps to undesrtand world situation IF you imagined for a minute you were on the other side of the politcal/national fence on this one. Hence the Mullah comment. NOT to compare Bush to a Mullah but to compare the TREATMENT !!!

PS: and Recess Appointments made sense centuries ago when it could take a week to get nack to Washington :)

Dino Scuderia

08-01-2005, 12:43 PM

taz_rocks_miami

08-01-2005, 12:47 PM

I can't say I'm surprised. Since Bush couldn't get Bolton confirmed the right way, he waited untill congress went on recess and used the legal loop hole he knew he could use to get his way.

I know I'm gonna catch a lot flack for saying this but, JWB is one of the most autocratic presidents we have ever had.

My grandfather was right when he said: Politics is just like s**t, the more you stir it up, the more it stinks :(

Dino Scuderia

08-01-2005, 12:49 PM

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 12:49 PM

If we're to be educated by your geopolitical knowledge...or lack therof, we're all in trouble.

It's not the most important international appointment by far.
Most anti-UNers think so and that's the problem.

To think it is NOT shows a SERIOUS lack of world understanding in world politics.

"lack" ? yeah, right, I'm a dumb eurosnob. yeah. For sure !!

Dino Scuderia

08-01-2005, 02:20 PM

Most anti-UNers think so and that's the problem.

To think it is NOT shows a SERIOUS lack of world understanding in world politics.

"lack" ? yeah, right, I'm a dumb eurosnob. yeah. For sure !!

Okay, I accused you of America bashing, you accuse me of being anti-UN(I think)...but I'm not...and I don't think you're a 'dumb eurosnob'...quite the contrary.

Mostly my worldview is correct for me and your worldview is correct for you...and it's going to be the same for all the UN nations, there is no way to remove the respective biasis and interests of each one...that's why it'll never be the utopia a lot of people think it could be, that's totally naive.

I'm not anti-UN, I'm anti-corruption whether it be the UN or my government etc. The US is a founding member of the UN and we should remain a member and I believe the UN needs house cleaning....and to be honest I don't know how it's going to get done...yes investigations are ongoing...but it just highlights an inherent problem of that bureaucracy which is there's no one entity in charge.

My hopes are it can be revamped and be a shining example of the best it can be.

Still love me? ;)

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 02:45 PM

Okay, I accused you of America bashing, you accuse me of being anti-UN(I think)...but I'm not...and I don't think you're a 'dumb eurosnob'...quite the contrary.
It was the "geopolitical" comment.
Sounded like one worthy of another site some of us have played at.
I've been fortunate in business to have been in most places and worked with companies and customers from ALL extremes of political and economic flavours ( thou' not as extreme as Pieter's dirka-dirka-stan trips :) )

I wasn't aware I had EVER said anti-UN.
It was NOT intended if it was taken that way.

Mostly my worldview is correct for me and your worldview is correct for you...and it's going to be the same for all the UN nations, there is no way to remove the respective biasis and interests of each one...that's why it'll never be the utopia a lot of people think it could be, that's totally naive.
The big picture (IMHO) on 'worldview' is the willingness to expand our experiences and learn from them to understand the "other side" better.
Hence the question in the posts. I cannot understand the acceptance of what seems clear hypocrisy :( If Blair did something THAT extreme during British recess he woudl be subject to an instant vote of no confidence and removed as PM. I struggle to understand US partisan politics which seems to be contrary to "will of the people" as represented by the people THEY voted to be their DEMOCRATIC representation as opposed to the President who is their REPUBLIC representation. The closest I can imagine is the way the British Monarchy 100 years ago had power over the will of the nation.

I'm not anti-UN, I'm anti-corruption whether it be the UN or my government etc. The US is a founding member of the UN and we should remain a member and I believe the UN needs house cleaning....and to be honest I don't know how it's going to get done...yes investigations are ongoing...but it just highlights an inherent problem of that bureaucracy which is there's no one entity in charge.

My hopes are it can be revamped and be a shining example of the best it can be.

Still love me? ;)
of course.

And I see that the UN corruption myth lives strong :(
Have you compared the corruption in multinational corporations based in the US as a percentage of the money THEY handle ?

AND if you look at areas UN money has been tangled up with oil-for-money then Halliburtons hands aren't very clean. Halliburton has received roughly 52 percent of the $25.4 billion that the Pentagon has paid out to so far to 77 private contractors in Iraq. A British company has been complaining about halliburton corruption since THEY started providng oil at 18 cents a gallon instead of the $2.65 that halliburton had been charging before !!!! SOME try to make out the oil-fo-money is just the UN. It isn't :( EXcept in the minds of the far right who want to ensure that any "world power" is US based perhaps ????? One mans corruption is another mans profiteering and a third's "doing business" :)

Expanding "worldview" is never a wasted effort.

As I'd said earlier in this thread. If it can be explained I'd be interested to grasp it.

Zytek_Fan

08-01-2005, 06:11 PM

Wasn't France put under immense pressure to join the UN? Or was that the European Union?

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 06:35 PM

Wasn't France put under immense pressure to join the UN? Or was that the European Union?
One of the original signatories to the United Nations and member of Security Council.
Had previously been a member of the League of Nations also.
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

One of the originators of the EEC.

Not sure where you've picked up that -- except ---- France under De Gaulle constantly said "NON" to the British wanting to be part of the EEC ( as it was called back then ) Is it maybe just a little confusion ???

werty

08-01-2005, 06:58 PM

The point is....

Some of us are liberals, some of us are conservative's. Both sides are very stubborn and this arguement will never come to an agreement or end.

crisis

08-01-2005, 07:01 PM

Simply put the US treated the UN with contempt when it came to its (the US) unilateral decision to invade Iraq and it is now going to show the UN equal contempt. It will be interesting to watch this guys actions and even more interesting to see what the US does internationally with countries like Iran, syria, North Korea. I wonder if the only reason they have not been put under the torch by the US is because it is currently spread a little thin throughout the rest of the middle East.

Matra et Alpine

08-01-2005, 07:19 PM

The point is....

Some of us are liberals, some of us are conservative's. Both sides are very stubborn and this arguement will never come to an agreement or end.
If you believe that then democracy is truly DEAD :(

QuattroMan

08-01-2005, 08:40 PM

Fleet 500

08-01-2005, 09:01 PM

Simply put the US treated the UN with contempt when it came to its (the US) unilateral decision to invade Iraq and it is now going to show the UN equal contempt.
How can it be "unilateral" when over 30 countries participated?

Fleet 500

08-01-2005, 09:03 PM

How is this news? Does anyone remember his first election? Can you say 'fixed'?
How can it be called "fixed" when Bush won the original vote count and every other recount- machine and hand?
Obviously it wasn't "fixed."

targa

08-02-2005, 12:03 AM

i think hes in ONLY until a new congress conviens in january.....

crisis

08-02-2005, 12:24 AM

How can it be "unilateral" when over 30 countries participated?
It was not made with tthe backing of the UN.

crisis

08-02-2005, 12:26 AM

No matter what Bush dose there will be some against him!, that is life I guess, but this is the way I see it, he is the president of the US, and as far as the senate?!!! they can go and kiss Bush's @ass. Bunch of cry baby Democrats.
Perhaps the US should set up a system of government similar to , say Saddams then. Then he wont have to worry about troublesome senates and that irritating democratic process.

drakkie

08-02-2005, 12:34 AM

WARNING: the next might sound like an absurd statement, and im not trying to offend anyone personally with it.I am not a Neo-Nazi and I dont hate the people of the USA.I only strongly dislike their current politicians and policies.

Germany : 1930-1935
Adolf Hitler came to power by promising change of power and resurrection of the economy.
At first he played the game, according to the rules.But after a short while he began to blame others for the problems he (and his government) had.He became corrupt as well,and started to take power slowly into his own hand.
Then the building of the Reichstag was put on fire by a Dutch person ;).They quickly labelled him a Communist.Hitler proclaimed he had to take immediate countermeasures.
By using propaganda he controlled the people.I must say, he did THAT well.

At first he bypassed the reichstag in some decision "vital for the coexistence of the state"(giving him more power).The reichstag was put out of control shortly after.

after a couple of more years all that was left were ruins.

USA: now
Bush was elected, only because he had the thing the people wanted to hear, and the money to proclaim it to the people.After a short while there came the Kyoto treaty.to help out his friends, he didnt sign it.
Since that time the government got more and more problems.Instead of solving them, he tried to divert the attention to the war on Iraq/terror !!!
Meanwhile blaming others for the problems there(UN).

The attacks on 11/9 (according to our date ;)) were used to divert attention of the problems of the state to the so called "war on terror".
Bush is also starting to take control into his own(and condaleeza rice's) hand.
Slowly but surely he becomes a dictator.

USA: future
If Bush gets to continue as he does now, he will make more and more decisions while bypassing the Congress.the congress will become useless and be dismantled after a while.Bush will become the absolute dictator of the USA (which he now already is,in a way).

When Bush doesnt get a third term (which he will surely get, by changing the constitution), the next president will have an extremely hard task to get the USA out of bankrupcy (within next 10 years if they continue on the same path).furthermore, he will probably have to deal with the ruins left behind in Iraq,Afghanistan and more countries.Furthermore, the economies of many european countries will be damaged because of the high oil price. Because of the incertainty and fear of all these people, the oil supply gets unstable --> prices go up.

If the USA "falls"the problems are even worse.

Furthermore i highly disaprove the propaganda that Bush and co. are saying/bringing out.
They are making the people scared of terrorists, so that they will approve his "command".

Compare these twio examples for yourself.quite a lot of similarities, arent there ?

henk4

08-02-2005, 12:40 AM

as a thing that is happening in the sidelines to the Bolton Appointment:

The proposed new ambassador of the USA to the Netherlands, a Mr. Arnall, is currently facing legal problems because his company, Ameriquest has been charged with selling overpriced mortgages to thousands of Americans.
Mr. Arnall, a 65 year old multibillioniare is a friend of Mr. Bush and contributed heavily to his election compaign.

PS: We don't want such a guy here, at his age he should retire in the first place and with such a background Holland is not the right place for him.

henk4

08-02-2005, 12:42 AM

Perhaps the US should set up a system of government similar to , say Saddams then. Then he wont have to worry about troublesome senates and that irritating democratic process.

Clinton used the "recess appoitment" shortcut over 180 times during his eight years in office, Bushs' tally now stands at 140. Obviously it does no matter which party provides the president, he will always try to make a mockery of democracy.

Juggs

08-02-2005, 01:22 AM

henk4

08-02-2005, 02:15 AM

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 02:58 AM

Funny one Drakkie - and scarily possible :(

I'd add the "special relationship" is mirrored by the UK and Tony Blair.

Sadly we seem to be taking the role of Italy and Mussolini !!! :D

drakkie

08-02-2005, 03:22 AM

Funny one Drakkie - and scarily possible :(

I'd add the "special relationship" is mirrored by the UK and Tony Blair.

Sadly we seem to be taking the role of Italy and Mussolini !!! :D

certainly scary :( i hope that Bush isnt in the same situation that he alone can take control.Hitler benefitted from a loophole in the law.i hope the USA has learned and doesnt have the same loophole in the constitution.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 03:35 AM

certainly scary :( i hope that Bush isnt in the same situation that he alone can take control.Hitler benefitted from a loophole in the law.i hope the USA has learned and doesnt have the same loophole in the constitution.
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency - can suspend the consititution if I understood it correctly from a sports-bar-conversation :)
It was originally set up in the 50s/60s to ensure survivability after a nuclear war.
Modern Presidents gave it more powers as time went along - taking none away seemingly so hence they can ditch the constitution !!!
harldy anyeon else in the bar knew about it and yet it does LOTS of behind doors activities.
Sounded scary to me, but may be no different to most "civil defence plans" in countries.

or is it ........ :D

drakkie

08-02-2005, 04:15 AM

FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency - can suspend the consititution if I understood it correctly from a sports-bar-conversation :)
It was originally set up in the 50s/60s to ensure survivability after a nuclear war.
Modern Presidents gave it more powers as time went along - taking none away seemingly so hence they can ditch the constitution !!!
harldy anyeon else in the bar knew about it and yet it does LOTS of behind doors activities.
Sounded scary to me, but may be no different to most "civil defence plans" in countries.

or is it ........ :D

All these things are a good thing.used the wrong way however, they can really be a wrong thing.

Dino Scuderia

08-02-2005, 06:28 AM

Perhaps the US should set up a system of government similar to , say Saddams then. Then he wont have to worry about troublesome senates and that irritating democratic process.

Our government has worked as is quite well for 200+ years...why change now?

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 06:49 AM

Our government has worked as is quite well for 200+ years...why change now?
British Imperialism worked well for 500 years and then you guys wanted to change THAT :)

Why woudlnt' you want to remove another undemocratic power-crazed lunatic from running the country with no interest for the majority ????

:D joke :D

Seriously tho', you dont' see the divergance from the founding fathers will ?
Or the excess of centralised power in the Presidential hands nowadays and the attempts to position agreeable people into positions rather than the best ? It seems that way from outside :(

Dino Scuderia

08-02-2005, 07:11 AM

British Imperialism worked well for 500 years and then you guys wanted to change THAT :)

Why woudlnt' you want to remove another undemocratic power-crazed lunatic from running the country with no interest for the majority ????

:D joke :D

Seriously tho', you dont' see the divergance from the founding fathers will ?
Or the excess of centralised power in the Presidential hands nowadays and the attempts to position agreeable people into positions rather than the best ? It seems that way from outside :(

Presidential power hasn't changed, and it's not like the whole of America or congress was opposing Bolton, it was a few Democrats who are going to oppose anything Bush does.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 07:16 AM

Presidential power hasn't changed, and it's not like the whole of America or congress was opposing Bolton, it was a few Democrats who are going to oppose anything Bush does.
what about the 59 EX US diplomats who raise their concern so publicly ????

It was reported that a REPUBLICAN member on the Foreign Realtison Committee refused to nominate Bolton

WHY does everything become so partisan and black-white with republicans/democrats ? Each never seeing any triuth in the other positions ????

Dino Scuderia

08-02-2005, 07:20 AM

what about the 59 EX US diplomats who raise their concern so publicly ????

It was reported that a REPUBLICAN member on the Foreign Realtison Committee refused to nominate Bolton

WHY does everything become so partisan and black-white with republicans/democrats ? Each never seeing any triuth in the other positions ????

It still boils down to partisanship, that's the nature of any two Party system.

Don't try to understand it, you'll end up smashing your head with a hammer.

Let's see how the guy does....put the off-the-scale hysteria aside for a bit.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 07:30 AM

It still boils down to partisanship, that's the nature of any two Party system.
Confused then. So DID the Republican member of the Foreign Relatiosn Comitte change to beign a Democrat or do some see partisanship as bad as communism ?

Don't try to understand it, you'll end up smashing your head with a hammer.

Let's see how the guy does....put the off-the-scale hysteria aside for a bit.
It's not hysteria. It's wonderment and a little bemusement !

But putting it aside is like putting a hungry Lion into a kindergarten school and suggesting not to be hysterical about the act :D

Dino Scuderia

08-02-2005, 07:37 AM

Confused then. So DID the Republican member of the Foreign Relatiosn Comitte change to beign a Democrat or do some see partisanship as bad as communism ?

It's not hysteria. It's wonderment and a little bemusement !

But putting it aside is like putting a hungry Lion into a kindergarten school and suggesting not to be hysterical about the act :D

One republican, so what...ONE!

Geez, you're incredibly nit-picky.

I'm not going to lose sleep over Bolton, I'd lose more sleep over what has been going on under Kofi's watch.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 07:56 AM

One republican, so what...ONE!

Geez, you're incredibly nit-picky.
only pointed it out as you claimed it was all so partisan.

AND this guy was on the comittee who are supposed to select who the best cabdidate was.

You call it "nit picking" I call it questioning my representative !!!!

I'm not going to lose sleep over Bolton, I'd lose more sleep over what has been going on under Kofi's watch.
Ah, I see you've bought into THAT propoganda.
As I've said before compare it with Halliburton, Enron etc etc.
Big orgnaisations are subject to problems. Made worse as the UN has by it's make to ask nations to do things on its behalf. It is NOT a world power or world army or world criminal (!)
That doesn't make it OK that there are problems BUT i get VERY suspicious of groups who repeatedly point to the bad bits and NEVER acknowledge the otehrs. I got banned from rr site for posting EVIDENCE of the good every time someone whinged and asking them to recognise THAT :D

AND a snippet I got sent a while back from else where ....

In the oil-for-money scandlas, WHERE did the oil GO ????
"Coastal purchased $713 million in crude, Mobil Refining bought $489 million in oil through Erdem Holding Co., Chevron Products purchased $140 million in oil, and Texaco purchased $28 million in oil.Another Houston company, Bayoil, which is registered in the Bahamas, is listed as purchasing $102 million in oil."

I've not had time to confirm/deny that info sent to me the other person said it was from "newshound" which he described as anti-Fox, so I'm not sure. BUT if you wish to confirm for me, I'd be more than happy to accept the "scandal" is all the UN's problem/fault :)

Anti-UN is NOT what you want from a UN ambassador and anti UN-reform-taking-power-away-from America is bad too. Bolton doesn't see the need to add to the Security Council or the reduction/removal of the veto.

Dino Scuderia

08-02-2005, 08:03 AM

only pointed it out as you claimed it was all so partisan.

AND this guy was on the comittee who are supposed to select who the best cabdidate was.

You call it "nit picking" I call it questioning my representative !!!!

Ah, I see you've bought into THAT propoganda.
As I've said before compare it with Halliburton, Enron etc etc.
Big orgnaisations are subject to problems. Made worse as the UN has by it's make to ask nations to do things on its behalf. It is NOT a world power or world army or world criminal (!)
That doesn't make it OK that there are problems BUT i get VERY suspicious of groups who repeatedly point to the bad bits and NEVER acknowledge the otehrs. I got banned from rr site for posting EVIDENCE of the good every time someone whinged and asking them to recognise THAT :D

AND a snippet I got sent a while back from else where ....

In the oil-for-money scandlas, WHERE did the oil GO ????
"Coastal purchased $713 million in crude, Mobil Refining bought $489 million in oil through Erdem Holding Co., Chevron Products purchased $140 million in oil, and Texaco purchased $28 million in oil.Another Houston company, Bayoil, which is registered in the Bahamas, is listed as purchasing $102 million in oil."

I've not had time to confirm/deny that info sent to me the other person said it was from "newshound" which he described as anti-Fox, so I'm not sure. BUT if you wish to confirm for me, I'd be more than happy to accept the "scandal" is all the UN's problem/fault :)

Anti-UN is NOT what you want from a UN ambassador and anti UN-reform-taking-power-away-from America is bad too. Bolton doesn't see the need to add to the Security Council or the reduction/removal of the veto.

UN investigation results are due out early this month, we'll see how much is myth. And BTW, I do agree with you that there is enough corruption to go around.

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 08:40 AM

Perhaps the US should set up a system of government similar to , say Saddams then. Then he wont have to worry about troublesome senates and that irritating democratic process.
I know what your tying to say cricis,but please don't compare"Sadfart" to Bush, he dose not go after his own people,he dose not use chemicals on us, any way! who do you think Bush should of choose??? There is noting wrong with the person he chose, I think he'll do just fine.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 09:18 AM

I know what your tying to say cricis,but please don't compare"Sadfart" to Bush, he dose not go after his own people,he dose not use chemicals on us, any way! who do you think Bush should of choose??? There is noting wrong with the person he chose, I think he'll do just fine.
Yeah someone who alledgedaly forced his first wife to have group sex sounds as if he'll fit in to the UN just fine according to some neo-cons anyway :)

The comparision with Saddam is a little extreme when you consider the excesses he undertook. But you woudl have to have one eye shut not to question some of the antics of the Carlyle group, Halliburton, Enron, patriot Act that have gone on durign his "watch". There are more ways to subdue a population than by terror. Fear is the biggest weapon used against Americans since the days of the Cold War. And is it OK that he's done it to hundreds of prisoners in Guantanemo - or is it OK to "act like Saddam" as long as it's to someone else you're doing it to ?

Isn't NOT signing up to reduce emissions in a way "using chemicals" on you ?
Worse pollution but hey strong profits for car makers adn industries and oil comapnies, so it has to be good, huh. Nah, I dont' take that analogy too closely either, but think it through just a little :)

Who to chose ? Most leaders try to chose representatives who bring together the views of the people and the parties, especially in international organisations. Currently it seems to be the view that you pick who you want for personal/party gain and then use every trick to make it stick. I saw from CNN today that GWBs ratign is now the lowest EVER in his presidency.

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 11:06 AM

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 11:15 AM

Drakkie for president!!!!! you got my vote! NOT! :D

Jews are smarter this days Bush will never get that far...you know what guys! every time there is discussions about politics, we will always have 50/50 split opinions , it dose not matter what it is,
You're mnissing the point, NOBODY is saying GWB would supress the Jewish population of America.
only that he woudl exercise an excess of power to meet HIS goals.

SO!!! why do you think your opinions are right,? I have question, did you guys think Clinton was a good president,do you think he was GREAT president?
Nobody so far I dont' think has said their opinions are 100% right.
but we are in a discourse to explore the opinions, to justify them to explain them adn (hoepfully) to understadn the big picture better.
It's what debate - as opposed to partisan stubbornness - is about :)

And whether Clinton was good or bad in anyone's eyes is IRRELEVANT.
Think about it does the last car your family owned have any impact on the good or bad features of your current car ? Do you get more mpg because the last car was high mpg ? Does it ride worse because the last one had poor suspension ?? Obviously not !!
Likewise, a president is valued by his abilities and acts. Not by those who came before. Was Clinton good/bad ? I ithnk he made some collosal cock-ups. Does that give a current president leniencey in making as many ? It shoudlnt', should it. Or do you only desire of a leader that they make as big a mess as the one before and then it's all right :)

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 12:38 PM

Yeah someone who alledgedaly forced his first wife to have group sex sounds as if he'll fit in to the UN just fine according to some neo-cons anyway :)

I for one cant stand the f'n U.N. bunch thugs is what they are," wife
having group sex", matra your imagination is going wiled bro! lol! :)

The comparision with Saddam is a little extreme when you consider the excesses he undertook. But you woudl have to have one eye shut not to question some of the antics of the Carlyle group, Halliburton, Enron, patriot Act that have gone on durign his "watch".

last time I saw on TV,people that were responsible got 10+ year(sentences.) spell?

There are more ways to subdue a population than by terror. Fear is the biggest weapon used against Americans since the days of the Cold War. And is it OK that he's done it to hundreds of prisoners in Guantanemo - or is it OK to "act like Saddam" as long as it's to someone else you're doing it to ?

Terror is what started the hole thing don't you think? we cant just sit here let this "A" holes do what they want, I mean look what they doing to Great Britain, do you like what there doing? im pretty sure you don't.

Isn't NOT signing up to reduce emissions in a way "using chemicals" on you ?
Worse pollution but hey strong profits for car makers adn industries and oil comapnies, so it has to be good, huh. Nah, I dont' take that analogy too closely either, but think it through just a little :)

Oh come on!! if that is the case, you and I are guilty also for driving
our cars, people demand for more oil bro and the is the reality,we cant just blame Bush for it.

Who to chose ? Most leaders try to chose representatives who bring together the views of the people and the parties, especially in international organisations. Currently it seems to be the view that you pick who you want for personal/party gain and then use every trick to make it stick. I saw from CNN today that GWBs ratign is now the lowest EVER in his presidency.

I don't want to sound like a d@ck here, but International organization has no say so is to what is good for America, the president dose....which happens to be PAPA BUSH!!! :D

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 01:43 PM

I don't want to sound like a d@ck here, but International organization has no say so is to what is good for America, the president dose....which happens to be PAPA BUSH!!! :D
So if the guy who lives next door to you decides that the only way for him to feed his family is if he opens up a pig slaughterhouse. THEN you're OK with the noise and the smell are you ?

grow UP :)

This is about an ambassador to contribute IN an International organisation.
We are all neighbours on this one planet.
And have to find a peaceful way to resolve conflict, disasters adn the shared ecology.

Unless of course the reader is a d!ck :D

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 02:00 PM

So if the guy who lives next door to you decides that the only way for him to feed his family is if he opens up a pig slaughterhouse. THEN you're OK with the noise and the smell are you ?

grow UP :)

This is about an ambassador to contribute IN an International organisation.
We are all neighbours on this one planet.
And have to find a peaceful way to resolve conflict, disasters adn the shared ecology.

Unless of course the reader is a d!ck :D
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I love you bro!!! in most cases your right matra...but one thing I don't understand is, what is wrong with the one he chose as ambassador??? P.S I totally respect how you discuss and carry your conversation with members, if you ever run for president you got my vote!!!!! :)

Rockefella

08-02-2005, 02:11 PM

if you ever run for president you got my vote!!!!! :)
He's not a US citizen.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 02:16 PM

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! I love you bro!!! in most cases your right matra...but one thing I don't understand is, what is wrong with the one he chose as ambassador??? P.S I totally respect how you discuss and carry your conversation with members, if you ever run for president you got my vote!!!!! :)
He has been openly anti-UN. "you coudl remove the top 10 floors of the building and nobody would notice" - NOT the best way to then be able to work WITH people.
He doesnt' have the support of all sides of the political 'divide' in the US - not even CLOSE :)
Check out his history of his first wife. "SOME" folks denigrate the UN because of the reputation and acts ( of a sexual nature ) that delegates and workers have undertaken. Sounds a bit hypocritical then, no ?
He lied to Congress on Iraqi nuclear claims. Sorry the words the pro-press used is "innacurately told" :)
He also led the U.S. withdrawal from International Criminal Court jurisdiction and encouraged U.S. opposition to Europe's decision to lift its arms embargo on China, two initiatives that upset allies.
of the top of the head ? Do you want to do a search for some more yourself, most of it is in public domain.

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 02:16 PM

He's not a US citizen.

i know that it was just for fun rockefella,,, take it ezzz! no need to start sh@t!

Rockefella

08-02-2005, 02:18 PM

i know that it was just for fun rockefella,,, take it ezzz! no need to start sh@t!
I was only kidding. :cool:

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 02:19 PM

I was only kidding. :cool:
me to bro :)

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 02:20 PM

He's not a US citizen.
That's OK. Once Halliburton has consumed all of the US reserves, We'll just restore you as a colonya dn I'll be King :)

PSL Just read that Halliburton have increased p[rofit by 284% thanks to this years war efforts !!! MAN. The article also said that $1B in "questionable" and nearly $500M in "unaothorised" expenses. Man, If I WAS a US Citizen I'd be mighty pissed off at how my tax dollar is going. Especially as the headlines some have created for years have been UN "corruption" :)

EDIT: and it was obvious Rocke was adding some joke lines to keep us amused. It was good :)

taz_rocks_miami

08-02-2005, 03:19 PM

My concern about Bolton, is not that he is conservative or was nominated by GWB. My concern is that Bolton hasn't expressed himself very well when it comes to the UN and has been discribed by many as un-deplomatic. If you're gonna name an Embassador, one with those traits doesn't seem to be the top choice. Anyway, lets see how it plays out. :)

Fleet 500

08-02-2005, 03:55 PM

It was not made with tthe backing of the UN.
But it was done with more than one country participating, therefore... no unilateral.

Quiggs

08-02-2005, 05:14 PM

Matra, Fleet, and a political thread... In before this gets ugly.

Matra et Alpine

08-02-2005, 05:18 PM

But it was done with more than one country participating, therefore... no unilateral.
The comment was on a "unilateral DECISION" Fleet.
You're right on the act, but as the Downing Street papers showed, GWB had decided to invade long before any decisions were being asked of the UN.
The FACTS on that are now irrefutable. Please read them before reponding on THAT point.

Agreed that once it was clear the US were going in that others joined in for their differing reasons. But it was never with UN agreement.

crisis

08-02-2005, 06:03 PM

Our government has worked as is quite well for 200+ years...why change now?

Originally Posted by QuattroMan
and as far as the senate?!!! they can go and kiss Bush's @ass. Bunch of cry baby Democrats.
Quattro seems to think there are bits you could do without to streamline things a little more. ;)

crisis

08-02-2005, 06:28 PM

what you have to know about the UN is that its ran by the illuminati and their only goal is to take over the world and create a new world order? don't believe me? look it up and it will all make sense.
:rolleyes:
Yes I have had discussions about this elsewhere. I cant quite get why they are taking so long seeing they started back in the 1400s. If they are that slow I dont fear them to much. :D
Wait!!!!!! Oh no, look at this!!!
http://www.illuminati.org/

QuattroMan

08-02-2005, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by QuattroMan
and as far as the senate?!!! they can go and kiss Bush's @ass. Bunch of cry baby Democrats.
Quattro seems to think there are bits you could do without to streamline things a little more. ;)

Yes Sirrrr! for last 200+ years this is what the Republicans had to deal with,bunch of cry babies :) ....sorry Dino S. but I have to use your avatar :D

Fleet 500

08-02-2005, 08:17 PM

The comment was on a "unilateral DECISION" Fleet.
You're right on the act, but as the Downing Street papers showed, GWB had decided to invade long before any decisions were being asked of the UN.
The FACTS on that are now irrefutable. Please read them before reponding on THAT point.

Agreed that once it was clear the US were going in that others joined in for their differing reasons. But it was never with UN agreement.
Actually, a bill in Congress for regime change in Congress passed in 1998, before Bush was President.
Bush did try going through the U.N. (unlike Clinton who sent troops to Bosnia without U.N. approval); but France refused to vote in favor.

Fleet 500

08-02-2005, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by QuattroMan
and as far as the senate?!!! they can go and kiss Bush's @ass. Bunch of cry baby Democrats.

Remember, the Senate did have plenty of time to vote "yes" or "no" for Bolton.

drakkie

08-03-2005, 12:04 AM

but France refused to vote in favor.

for some very good reasons.

I spoke to a mate's dad yesterday.it really was an eye-opener.
That man used to be a soldier in the Iraqi army. here are parts of his story that affected me the most:

before the (2nd)war, joining the army in Iraq was seen as a very respectable job. When the USA invaded Iraq they were virtually not prepared, how strange this may seem. Because he was based not to far from where his wife and children (one of em is my mate now ;)), he decided to desert the army to go home and protect his family.he walked for two days from a base 100 km from Baghdad to Baghdad itself. There he met up with his wife, hugging kissing, everything, you know.
The next morning he went with his wife towards he market, to buy some food.The americans arrived in baghdad around that time.Because he still carried his gun, they went panicing or something. He shouted in english: "relax, i will drop my weapon, i only protect my wife and baby with it !!!". before he even finished his sentence a few shots were fired from a HUMVEE.he jumped in front of his wife.his baby of just 2 months old was shot in the head, and he himself was shot 9 times !!! 7 shots in his left arm and one in his leg, and 1 in his other arm.

He had always expected the Americans to be reasonable people that would understand the situation.Instead they shot before they even thinked.

drakkie

08-03-2005, 12:08 AM

that doesn't really matter to the thread, but hey, it's a cool story.the man was crying when he told me that.he hates americans now.IMHO he has a good reason to hate them. they did him and his wife pain, while he didnt do anything.He old me that a lot of people in Iraq feel the same.Saddam left them alone, didnt really hurt/affect them.but the mericans invade he country without adjusting to the local values and stuff.but i guess that is how it always is.

Other values dont matter, ours are better anyway !
for the people there it worked fine,why should they have to adapt ? its their country, not the americans....

Arrogant sh!theads

IBrake4Rainbows

08-03-2005, 12:20 AM

Now I'll have to jump in here.

The UN is the ONLY body that every country in the world has to deal with these issues at the moment, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's better than the alternative (that is, no Organisation at all, world anarchy).

The US is showing it's contempt for this organisation (Possibly out of spite) by appointing someone who shows a complete lack of respect and understanding of the UN.

It's truly Depressing.

Matra et Alpine

08-03-2005, 01:33 AM

Actually, a bill in Congress for regime change in Congress passed in 1998, before Bush was President.
Bush did try going through the U.N. (unlike Clinton who sent troops to Bosnia without U.N. approval); but France refused to vote in favor.
oh dear MIS-TRUTHS again :(

France and RUSSIA both said they would veto on a vote to push the UN Inspection teams aside, preventing them completing the task assigned under UN mandate.

Old Bill's bill too and you're being a little disingeneous ( but we know ).
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
NOTE the words "My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions"

Did you really ever READ these or just copy them from anothers words ?

trying to palm-off Bush's approach as the same as Clintons is media manipulation worthy of Goebbels :( http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/danken.htm
( replace Germany with America, Hitler with Bush, Fuhrer with President, National Socialism with Republican capitlaism and Rechstag with White office - it's VERY VERY Scary - and a little bit of fun !! )

The BIGGEST issue with the US troops in Bosnia was that it never served ANY US interest. It only served peace. For that he got lambasted by the hawsk in the US political system who prefer a world-order approach to intervention :( A peace treaty had just been signed in one of the ugliest conflicts in decades and the UN needed support for peace-keeping forces.
Ther are many hundreds of thousands of ordinary people alive for those efforts.

Sorry it didnt' involve oil or multinational business and that halliburton cou;dn't skim billions from it !!!! ( OK the last comment is MEANT to get you thinking :) )

Matra et Alpine

08-03-2005, 01:36 AM

Remember, the Senate did have plenty of time to vote "yes" or "no" for Bolton.
that's like asking a father to say to shoot his son or hang his daughter !!

WHY such "soiled goods" was put forward is the big issue as far as I can see/ have discussed with friends :(

MOST groups are willing to put aside thier favoured candidate if there is major conflict and to propose another who may not be the BEST for party one or the WORST for party two but ensures that both work together - especially when their is a THIRD party impacted by the decisions !!!

henk4

08-03-2005, 01:42 AM

Remember, the Senate did have plenty of time to vote "yes" or "no" for Bolton.

yeah,those stupid senators, how would they dare to oppose the decisions of THE most visionary president of the USA the world has ever seen. These guys should be released from their positions with immediate effect, because they really lack the capability to represent the people

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 02:50 PM

Once again, Matra, the bill which called for regime change in Iraq was signed by Clinton and was passed by Congress (in 1998).

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 02:51 PM

yeah,those stupid senators, how would they dare to oppose the decisions of THE most visionary president of the USA the world has ever seen. These guys should be released from their positions with immediate effect, because they really lack the capability to represent the people
And how many times did Clinton do the same thing that Bush did? 140 times, isn't it? But I notice the Democrats don't bring that up!

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 02:53 PM

for some very good reasons.

Actually, the reason was that France was selling war materials to Iraq for oil.

Matra et Alpine

08-03-2005, 04:37 PM

Once again, Matra, the bill which called for regime change in Iraq was signed by Clinton and was passed by Congress (in 1998).
Fleet did you READ the section I took from that very bill you name ?
HAve you read it ??

NOTICE it CLEARLY STATES "relevant UN resolutions".

You are being disingenous in trygin to equate that bill and GWBs activities where the Downing Street papers have CLAERLY PROVEN that GWB had the plans underway before even asking.

Seriosuly man, will you pleae READ THE PUBLISED material ????/

Matra et Alpine

08-03-2005, 04:39 PM

And how many times did Clinton do the same thing that Bush did? 140 times, isn't it? But I notice the Democrats don't bring that up!
Did you not read the point ALREADY MADE about the importance of this position.
Nobody really cares too much about minor appointments. I sugeest that's the reason the consitution permits it. So that minor positions can be filled without having to wait for return of the congress.

You are trying to say that 140 Fiats are as good as one Ferrari :)

Get some balance in your opinions and analysis PLEASE :(
Acting in such a narrow-minded partisan way and only seeign bad on the otehr side is NOT healthy in a democracy. Fascism and communism loves it !!!

Matra et Alpine

08-03-2005, 04:43 PM

Actually, the reason was that France was selling war materials to Iraq for oil.
That is one plausible reason for sure.

So is the fact that they are a republic which BELIEVES in Equalite, Egalite, Fraternite and what GWB was doing was illegal under UN resolutions.

SO what, America was selling much worse for oil and continues to do so.
Halliburton selling oil at $2.40is and then hampering a company selling it at 18cents. It's becoming clearer where the "reconstruction money" is going.

It amazes me how transparent it is and yet avoided by GWB supporters :)
So America is giving $bilions in aid and support, and THEN companies like Haliburton are taking 80% of it back to Americas richest families. And somehow the Iraqis are supposed to be thankful.

Stop your simple Francophile-bashing. It doenst' become and intelligen man !!

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 05:31 PM

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 05:33 PM

SO what, America was selling much worse for oil and continues to do so.
Halliburton selling oil at $2.40is and then hampering a company selling it at 18cents. It's becoming clearer where the "reconstruction money" is going.

It amazes me how transparent it is and yet avoided by GWB supporters :)
So America is giving $bilions in aid and support, and THEN companies like Haliburton are taking 80% of it back to Americas richest families. And somehow the Iraqis are supposed to be thankful.

Again with the Haliburton? Clinton also is (or was) linked with that company (business-speaking).

crisis

08-03-2005, 05:37 PM

And how many times did Clinton do the same thing that Bush did? 140 times, isn't it? But I notice the Democrats don't bring that up!
And what about Hitler and Stalin, they were worse too. When are you going to stop trying to justify Bush's failings and transgressions by comparing him to anyone who you consider to be worse? Most of us debating this thread are not even American let alone Democrats. That sh!t throwing is only of use on American political sites.

crisis

08-03-2005, 05:42 PM

Dino Scuderia

08-03-2005, 05:45 PM

Fleet did you READ the section I took from that very bill you name ?
HAve you read it ??

NOTICE it CLEARLY STATES "relevant UN resolutions".

You are being disingenous in trygin to equate that bill and GWBs activities where the Downing Street papers have CLAERLY PROVEN that GWB had the plans underway before even asking.

Seriosuly man, will you pleae READ THE PUBLISED material ????/

Are you refering to the "Downing Street Memo" that was 'copied' by a reporter then the 'original' was destroyed? If so it could never be adequatley corroberated...that's why it died in the Press shortly. After the Dan Rather/ CBS debacle with their memos the Press sort of learned it's lesson with that kind of bunk.

There's still a group of Democrats persuing it...but that group is headed by a guy that has done that kind of dead-end stuff for years....John Kerry is pushing it too.

If it goes to some revealing end than so be it...but unless something or someone that isn't anonymous comes along to support it...it's seems weak IMO.

I have always believed the WMD war selling effort was mostly a political wrapper anyway. Many reasons and interest were involved in the ploy...I don't like it but war with Saddam seemed inevitable.

spi-ti-tout

08-03-2005, 05:54 PM

1. No big surprise that Bush would want to do something about Saddam, since Saddam tried to have Bush's father assassinated.
Oh! All very well there....
So he takes a whole country down with him?

nota

08-03-2005, 06:13 PM

Oh! All very well there....
So he takes a whole country down with him?
Yep .. murder & mayhem on an international scale "coz he tryd ta hert mah daddie" :mad: :rolleyes:

So 1,800+ US 'liberators' die for the retribution of GB Senior (not forgetting those 25,000+ Iraqi civillians)

Speaking of USA's alleged 'War on Terror', seen this truly appaling news report of torture & terror inflicted on this so-far-untried victim of US-sanctioned terror?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1540552,00.html

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 08:13 PM

Yep .. murder & mayhem on an international scale "coz he tryd ta hert mah daddie" :mad: :rolleyes:

So 1,800+ US 'liberators' die for the retribution of GB Senior (not forgetting those 25,000+ Iraqi civillians)

Speaking of USA's alleged 'War on Terror', seen this truly appaling news report of torture & terror inflicted on this so-far-untried victim of US-sanctioned terror?
Yeah, maybe you're right. Maybe we should have let Saddam stay in power so he could add to the over 1 million Iraqis he had already killed. :rolleyes:

In case you didn't know, attempting to assassinate a former President is an act of war.

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 08:15 PM

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 08:18 PM

And what about Hitler and Stalin, they were worse too. When are you going to stop trying to justify Bush's failings and transgressions by comparing him to anyone who you consider to be worse? Most of us debating this thread are not even American let alone Democrats. That sh!t throwing is only of use on American political sites.
I was simply showing the hypocrisy... Bush being criticized for doing the same thing Clinton (and every other President) has done.
Let's face it, Bush is going to be criticized for every single thing he does by some people. When he wakes up in the morning and breathes, there are some who would say he is using up the air! It really is ridiculous. But, when about 75% of the media is anti-Bush, what else can you expect?

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 08:20 PM

Would you find as much justification if Ghadaffi had attacked Ronny because he had his daughter killed in the 1986 bombing raid?
For one thing, Ghadffi's daughter is not an ex-President.
Where did you come up with that kind of comparison?!?

nota

08-03-2005, 08:58 PM

Yeah, maybe you're right. Maybe we should have let Saddam stay in power so he could add to the over 1 million Iraqis he had already killed. :rolleyes:

In case you didn't know, attempting to assassinate a former President is an act of war.
.. except when it's a US-authorised assasination of another nation's leader, I suppose. And history has been tainted by a few of those 'events'. Oh well, at least America never got Castro, and for bonus points had its arse kicked in the Bay of Pigs

When comparing China's booming economic growth vs USA's booming debt, it begets the question .. how long into the future before Peking decides it will no longer 'let' America stay in power?

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 09:36 PM

.. except when it's a US-authorised assasination of another nation's leader, I suppose. And history has been tainted by a few of those 'events'. Oh well, at least America never got Castro, and for bonus points had its arse kicked in the Bay of Pigs

When comparing China's booming economic growth vs USA's booming debt, it begets the question .. how long into the future before Peking decides it will no longer 'let' America stay in power?
U.S.-authorized assassinations has been illegal since Pres. Ford signed the bill outlawing that.

The economy in the U.S. is booming, too. The figures for the last quarter (the 2nd quarter of 2005- April-June) were just released. It showed a very good 3.4% growth. China's economy is booming because of the many products of theirs the U.S. buys. (Look at Wal-Mart for example.)

henk4

08-03-2005, 10:48 PM

And how many times did Clinton do the same thing that Bush did? 140 times, isn't it? But I notice the Democrats don't bring that up!

If you had READ post number 39 in this thread you would have had your answers.

Fleet 500

08-03-2005, 11:05 PM

Then why so much complaining over ONE?

crisis

08-03-2005, 11:12 PM

I was simply showing the hypocrisy... Bush being criticized for doing the same thing Clinton (and every other President) has done.
Let's face it, Bush is going to be criticized for every single thing he does by some people. When he wakes up in the morning and breathes, there are some who would say he is using up the air! It really is ridiculous. But, when about 75% of the media is anti-Bush, what else can you expect?
Perhaps the 25% is right and the rest are wrong? Theres no hypocrisy here. Everyone has conceded ad nauseum that Clinton had faults and made mistakes. We are not playing one agains the other. We expect all of them to be above reproach. What do you expect of your leader? Any less.

crisis

08-03-2005, 11:18 PM

For one thing, Ghadffi's daughter is not an ex-President.
Where did you come up with that kind of comparison?!?
You said
"No big surprise that Bush would want to do something about Saddam, since Saddam tried to have Bush's father assassinated."
I asked if the leader of another country would be justified in going after the person responsible for the actual death of his daughter, effectively the same criteria.
It has nothing to do with being an ex president or are they the only people you feel are have the right to feel agrived to the extent they will mobilise their country to war on the basis that another country wanted to kill daddy?

crisis

08-03-2005, 11:19 PM

U.S.-authorized assassinations has been illegal since Pres. Ford signed the bill outlawing that.

Good for the U.S. Maybe the Iraqis hadnt decided to change their law?

http://www.treehouseonline.co.uk/photos/blinkers.jpg

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 02:37 AM

1. No big surprise that Bush would want to do something about Saddam, since Saddam tried to have Bush's father assassinated.
2. Many things in the Dowling Street memos have been discredited.
answer to 2 is a LIE. IF you are repeating it because someone todl you that it was you're excused for not thinking. IF you actually BELIEVE it then you're not excused.
Show me the evidence or SHUT UP. btw it's Downing for the google search :)

On 1. WHY do you think that one act justifies another ? This has been gone over with you before. IF you are going to step back htrough history and justifying one illegal act because of anoither one then every American shoudl hide in his home because the native Americans have the "right" to execute and rape every one of you !! Please at least DEBATE as a grown up.

Again with the Haliburton? Clinton also is (or was) linked with that company (business-speaking).
And AGAIN with that childish nonsense.
Do you have ANY belief in law and legal process or do you think if soemone steals from you that gives you the right to steal from them with impunity ??

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 02:46 AM

Are you refering to the "Downing Street Memo" that was 'copied' by a reporter then the 'original' was destroyed? If so it could never be adequatley corroberated...that's why it died in the Press shortly. After the Dan Rather/ CBS debacle with their memos the Press sort of learned it's lesson with that kind of bunk.
Did it "die" in the US press ?
Sounds as if the neo-con manipulation is TRUE then :)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Or are you spending too much time in the lies exponeded in 'some' republican sites - the ones where they ban people before they present further evidence adn THEN claim they are right becase no proff was offered ??
Read wider before making such simple comments on facts please.

If it goes to some revealing end than so be it...but unless something or someone that isn't anonymous comes along to support it...it's seems weak IMO.
Go read Robin Cooks autobiography. He resigned at the time. He was Britiains Foreign Minister. So he KNEW it all. The release of the notes just confirmed what he had said for years.
So it was there all along - but ignored by those who don't want to see any truth apart from the paritsan ones :(

I have always believed the WMD war selling effort was mostly a political wrapper anyway. Many reasons and interest were involved in the ploy...I don't like it but war with Saddam seemed inevitable.
If you think it a wrapper then you MUST concur that the act was ILLEGAL.
Without th IMMEDIATE THREAT of those WMDs there was no excuse under international law for the invasion !!
You can't have it both ways :)
The abuse of international law will come back to bite us as others once they are stronger will act this way and there will be no moral groudn for US/UK to preach from :(
America is acting with the WORST excesses of the French, Belgian and British Empires 200-300 years ago. Those 300 years have educated MOST of us to realise how wrong it was and to not repeat it :(

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 02:53 AM

Very true. I was going to post all of what you said about the Downing Street Memos to Matra, but would it have done any good? I doubt it!
I am laughing at your stupidity.

Bring it on.

You know *I* know the truth.

rr.com banned me before I was allowed to post the truth.

YOU can't hide that way here.

Show me the EVIDENCE that the Downing Street memo is untrue.
While at it, explain the Robin Cook autobiography which said the same and was pulbished AT THE TIME and not years later ?

I was simply showing the hypocrisy... Bush being criticized for doing the same thing Clinton (and every other President) has done.
wait .... wait ..... oh please .... must stop laughing .....

Fleet YOU are the one who ALWAYS brings up the comparisons with Clinton.

You then bleat "hypocrisy" when you're caught again.
Funny as you never really responded to the hpyocrit label applied to you in the past.

But I know you dont' liek getting the treatmenet you gladly hand out :)

For one thing, Ghadffi's daughter is not an ex-President.
Where did you come up with that kind of comparison?!?
This is SCARY.

So wait, ex-presidents' are a "special" people ?

So it's OK to kill a family member not expect retribution as long as they were not presidents ???

Please FLEET, will you think things through on what you suggest before it gets any worse ???

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 03:06 AM

The economy in the U.S. is booming, too. The figures for the last quarter (the 2nd quarter of 2005- April-June) were just released. It showed a very good 3.4% growth. China's economy is booming because of the many products of theirs the U.S. buys. (Look at Wal-Mart for example.)
Get some facts and show them ?

China exports DOUBLE to Asian countries as it does to the US.

The EU and US are about on a par.

As a percentage the US takes 20% of Chinas exports.

Facts. Fleet.... FACTS !!!!

See http://www.china-imports-exports-statistics.com/data/2005/03/article_6119.html

Where the HELL did you get the lie that China is booming because of the US ? It's booming because of WORLD TRADE growth. In 4Q2004 growth in Europe and Latin American trade were each 5 times GREATER than with the US.

I am getting fed up with the rubbish you spout as if they were truths.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 03:08 AM

Then why so much complaining over ONE?
aha so if you've finally read post #39, now go read post #87 ........

THEN you may understand.

henk4

08-04-2005, 03:29 AM

Then why so much complaining over ONE?

as usual you missed the point, you tried to justify an act by Bush by saying that Clinton did the same. That is a rather childish way of debating.

IBrake4Rainbows

08-06-2005, 03:02 AM

I don't think we're going to go into this argument again.

Can we PLEASE Agree to disagree?

henk4

08-06-2005, 04:22 AM

I don't think we're going to go into this argument again.

Can we PLEASE Agree to disagree?

I disagree, if you agree to that :D

IBrake4Rainbows

08-06-2005, 04:25 AM

I disagree, I don't think we have to agree :p

henk4

08-06-2005, 04:27 AM

I disagree, I don't think we have to agree :p
NoOne agrees :D

Matra et Alpine

08-06-2005, 04:51 AM

I concur.

Agreeing to disagree about disagreeing over agreeing seems agreeable.

( I love the English language :) )

Fleet 500

08-06-2005, 01:20 PM

as usual you missed the point, you tried to justify an act by Bush by saying that Clinton did the same. That is a rather childish way of debating.
Practically every President has done it. What Bush did is perfectly legal.

henk4

08-06-2005, 02:28 PM

Practically every President has done it. What Bush did is perfectly legal.

I don't care whether it is legal or not, saying that somebody else did the same is the poorest way of debating in the first place. Hope that message will sink in. If not, just forget it.

Rockefella

08-06-2005, 03:21 PM

I don't care whether it is legal or not, saying that somebody else did the same is the poorest way of debating in the first place. Hope that message will sink in. If not, just forget it.
I'm willing to place bets on that not happening. :)

Matra et Alpine

08-06-2005, 03:23 PM

Practically every President has done it. What Bush did is perfectly legal.
So is executing innocent people found guilty in court.

There is a BIG difference between what is legally correct and what is morally correct.

Fleet 500

08-06-2005, 03:57 PM

I don't care whether it is legal or not, saying that somebody else did the same is the poorest way of debating in the first place. Hope that message will sink in. If not, just forget it.
Why are you criticizing Bush for doing something that is legal? Oh, wait, I know... because it's Bush!

Fleet 500

08-06-2005, 03:59 PM

So is executing innocent people found guilty in court.

There is a BIG difference between what is legally correct and what is morally correct.
No one in the U.S. has been found innocent after being executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.

Matra et Alpine

08-06-2005, 04:21 PM

No one in the U.S. has been found innocent after being executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977.
That isn't the POINT in the debate, Fleet.

That it is a possibilty and that it has happened even ONCE makes the point in the debate and rather than trying to divert it by saying it's not happened, it MIGHT have been interesting to see if you AGREED there is a difference between legally and morally right. THEN you would understand why some have raised the concerns over the way GWB has appointed Bolton.

BUT to take up your point. The issue is really whether the court system foudn someone GUILTY and sentenced to death in the court. THAT shows the moral wrong. Dont' know the details but Derrick Jamison was exonerated by the state of Ohio on February 28, 2005. So there ARE people ( admittedly not yet murdered ) who are sentenced to death and ARE innocent - but we digress. One would expect a similar ratio of those sentenced nad those executed. IN the attached ( from ACLU ) there is a HUGE ratio of execution to exoneration in Texas which from a statistical viewpoint is 'dangerous'. You woudl expect to see similar ratios across states within a normal bell curve.

Fleet 500

08-06-2005, 05:15 PM

Radio news just reported that President Bush has by-passedCongress adn made the appointment whilst they were in recess and unabel to discuss further or vote on it :(

That is 100% legal. There is no "crime" here. A President has the power to do that. You're grasping at straws! (And obviously so anti-Bush that it's clouding your reasoning.) Sad. :(

Matra et Alpine

08-06-2005, 05:56 PM

Fleet, can you PLESE go back and realise how many times we have talked about MORAL and LEGAL.

There is a difference and not all things legal are moral.
eg suing for burning yourself on hot coffee is legal but clearly isn't morally acceptable !!! Vacuous lawsuits are the most obvious example of the difference that has gronw in the last 20 years :)

I'm happy to discuss it further if you show you have understood the difference and we can debate THAT. As it is you sseem to be just ignorign the MORALITY of the decisions. But as you seem to have jumped back a lot of posts to find that you woudl have already seen the response to that point in the follo-ups. It's quite clear really.

Fleet 500

08-06-2005, 06:16 PM

Fleet, can you PLESE go back and realise how many times we have talked about MORAL and LEGAL.
Exactly what did Bush do that was not "moral?"
And why did you mention the word "crime?"

Matra et Alpine

08-06-2005, 06:42 PM

Exactly what did Bush do that was not "moral?"
Pushing through a MAJOR appointment by a method normally only used for mibnor appointments. Using the law to get HIS way rather than the democratic solution. Ignoring issues raised re the person involved. There are quite a few you can list when you think through the procedure used :(

And why did you mention the word "crime?"
Because we're writing English ???

See entries #3 and #4 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crime

The word is NOT limited to only LEGAL acts.

I think you will now see the reasons, yes ??

henk4

08-07-2005, 01:04 AM

Clinton used the "recess appoitment" shortcut over 180 times during his eight years in office, Bushs' tally now stands at 140. Obviously it does no matter which party provides the president, he will always try to make a mockery of democracy.

Dear Mr. Fleet,

This is what I posted earlier. You see that the gist of my comment is not related to who is president but to the fact that presidents seem to be using their power, regardless of what party they belong to. They abuse democracy to a great extent and it puts big questionmarks behind the efforts to spread this type of democracy to other country who are so eagerly longing for freedom.

I would not care about such a system if it would entail the appointment of the deputy sheriff of Tucson, Arizona, but in this case the guy happens to be the official US representative in what I still consider to be the most important institute in maintaining a civilised world order. I am less certain that Mr. Bolton is going to make a big contribution to that, and obviously many of your countrymen thought in the same way.

Fleet 500

08-07-2005, 12:45 PM

Pushing through a MAJOR appointment by a method normally only used for mibnor appointments. Using the law to get HIS way rather than the democratic solution. Ignoring issues raised re the person involved. There are quite a few you can list when you think through the procedure used :(

Matra and henk:
Which is more "immoral"- a recess appointment for an ambassador to the U.N. or a recess apppointment to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Which do you think is worse and/or more dangerous?

If you say the Supreme Court, let me remind you that George Washington appointed John Rutledge of South Carolina as chief justice of South Carolina as chief justice during a 1795 recess.

Was JFK "immoral" when he recess appointed Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd U.S. Circut Court of Appeals in Oct., 1961 without getting Senate approval first?

Was it the moral of Theodore Roosevelt to issue several recess appointments during a one-day Senate recess?

Was Bill Clinton "immoral" to recess appoint James Hormel to the position of ambassador to Luxembourg in 1999 in spite of his failure to get Senate approval?

Were any of these Presidents (including Bush) being "immoral" by exercising the authority granted to them by Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?

Show me where in the Constitution which says that recess appointments are not "moral."

What really is immoral was the minority party's holding up the position of U.N. Ambassador for 5 months without letting the full Senate have an up or down vote!

Matra et Alpine

08-07-2005, 05:49 PM

Fleet, you PREFECTLY answered our points on our behalf.
I really think soemwehre ytou've become confused as to the differences between moral and legal.
You cite 3 internal US cases. In world politics they aren't either moreal or immoral. BUT your fellow American may have stronger views on it as it mroe directly affects them
Finally you have a seriously dsturbed view if international politics if you eqyuate Luxembour adn the UN !! I suggest you read up on both organisation before continuing to suggest any similarities or not :D
You then talk abotu exercising authority on a legal issue.
Clearly you have not understood what a MOREAL is.( Perhaps this explains ALL THE OTHER issues we've clashed over :( )

Unbelievable that you expect a legal document to EWXPLAIN a moreal issues. IF it is explained fully thren there is littel morality questioned about it. Moral issues come in where interpretations are applied or arare possible on a legal issues - well usually that is as few neations put IMMORAL acts into legal processes.

I like how you are SO definite about the Senate using DUE LEGAL PROCESS to block a move and that it upsets you and is "immoral". erm you REALLY believe that ? If yes, then can you rationalise for us WHY you dont' believe the same about a President whom you think used due legal process. Sounds like you're running double standards.

Fleet 500

08-07-2005, 06:07 PM

Fleet, you PREFECTLY answered our points on our behalf.
I really think soemwehre ytou've become confused as to the differences between moral and legal.

I like how you are SO definite about the Senate using DUE LEGAL PROCESS to block a move and that it upsets you and is "immoral". erm you REALLY believe that ?
Again, Matra, if Bush exercising his legal rights is "immoral," than so were those other Presidents I listed.

Also again, what Bush did is allowed (legally and morally) in the U.S. Constitution.

henk4

08-08-2005, 01:02 AM

Again, Matra, if Bush exercising his legal rights is "immoral," than so were those other Presidents I listed.

Also again, what Bush did is allowed (legally and morally) in the U.S. Constitution.

and again you use the childish debating style i previously indicated and again what I am questioning here is the "morality/legality" of the constitution.

(anecdote about the way Luxemburg is being seen in the USA: About 10 years ago Luxemburg and the USA made a bilateral agreement, that gave Luxemburg flagged ships access to all american seaports, in exchange for american flag ships having unrestricted access to all Luxemburg ports)

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 02:44 AM

Again, Matra, if Bush exercising his legal rights is "immoral," than so were those other Presidents I listed.

Also again, what Bush did is allowed (legally and morally) in the U.S. Constitution.

With thanks to Graham Chapman,John Cleese,Terry Gilliam,Eric Idle,Terry Jones,Michael Palin...........

MetA: An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Fleet: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
MetA: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Fleet: Yes it is!
MetA: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Fleet: No it isn't

:D

OK, so I have to go over the ground slowly for you to review what was written AGAIN :( .....

I pointed out that whether Americans consider the national appointments as moraly right or wrong was for them. You seem to have IGNORED that point compeltely so you coudl justify your vacuous response. You show a lack of ability to grasp that some appointmeents are more immoral than others and some ( because morality is NOT legal ) will cause concern and some won't This was pointed out to you. You again make the mistake of justifying one act because of those of others. This bad debating has been pointed out to you MANY times. You added NOTHING to the debate. See sketch above :)

henk4

08-08-2005, 03:11 AM

it looks like you are arguing in your free time :)

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 03:21 AM

it looks like you are arguing in your free time :)
Sorry dropped down into an alcoholic-drive Monty Python phase.

Just surfaced after last night at another Edinburgh Festival event.
The stand up comic was struggling so we started taking the piss in best Monty Python style. He played along a couple of times and tried heckling but we wore him down :)

We showed our age :( mental and temporal !!!!

henk4

08-08-2005, 03:23 AM

We showed our age :( mental and temporal !!!!

that may have been legally allowed, but not morally...

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 03:33 AM

that may have been legally allowed, but not morally...
only the comic seemed to be annoyed :)
Well that and one member of our group who was mortified and embarrased when we all stood up and screamed "NOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION" :D

henk4

08-08-2005, 03:41 AM

what did you quote as your prime weapons?

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 03:47 AM

what did you quote as your prime weapons?
we didnt' get that far :)
The Austrian couple at the front by now were VERY confused !!!!

henk4

08-08-2005, 04:06 AM

we didnt' get that far :)
The Austrian couple at the front by now were VERY confused !!!!

they could have taken you as belonging to the show

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 04:30 AM

They left after the third comic !!
By then they'd been picked on about a dozen times, so I guess they decided enough was enough :)

henk4

08-08-2005, 04:56 AM

They left after the third comic !!
By then they'd been picked on about a dozen times, so I guess they decided enough was enough :)

I hope nobody mentioned the war :D

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 05:01 AM

I hope nobody mentioned the war :D
nah, stand-up comics at the Fringe are MUCH more persoanl than that ...

Along the lines of
"Are you in Edinburgh for anything special"
"no, just by accident"
" so what like you were passing by an airport and tripped onto a plane and f**k me I'll just go to Edinburgh then"

"I like your red shoes. Do you want a cuddle ? ..... F**ks sake dont' look at me like I'm a mass murderer !!"

Hint to UCPers if you go to standup comedy in the Fringe do NOT sit in the front row UNLESS you are willing to heckle and throw it back as quickly and intelligently as the comic. ( note the third comic on the line-up BOMBED because he failed to be quick OR intelligent to the audience "involvement" :) )

henk4

08-08-2005, 05:11 AM

for the foreseeable future I have no intention going there. May be you could invite Fleet though for next year :)

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 06:37 AM

for the foreseeable future I have no intention going there. May be you could invite Fleet though for next year :)
maybe the "Lady boys of Bangkok" would interest you ??

best indicator on amount of drink consumed last night was when one of the guys with us made some comments about the gorgeous indo-Asian girl ahead of us -- YEP turns out to be one of the Lady-boys. We wont' let him forget :)

henk4

08-08-2005, 06:49 AM

maybe the "Lady boys of Bangkok" would interest you ??

best indicator on amount of drink consumed last night was when one of the guys with us made some comments about the gorgeous indo-Asian girl ahead of us -- YEP turns out to be one of the Lady-boys. We wont' let him forget :)

I have seen enough of those in Bangkok :)

Fleet 500

08-08-2005, 01:31 PM

and again you use the childish debating style i previously indicated and again what I am questioning here is the "morality/legality" of the constitution.

(anecdote about the way Luxemburg is being seen in the USA: About 10 years ago Luxemburg and the USA made a bilateral agreement, that gave Luxemburg flagged ships access to all american seaports, in exchange for american flag ships having unrestricted access to all Luxemburg ports)
henk, what it all boils down to is that every appointment Bush has made was within the laws of the Constitution.
If Bush had broken the Constitution, you can be sure the Democrats would be on TV 24/7 complaining about it! They're not.

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 01:58 PM

henk, what it all boils down to is that every appointment Bush has made was within the laws of the Constitution.
If Bush had broken the Constitution, you can be sure the Democrats would be on TV 24/7 complaining about it! They're not.
NOT ONE PERSON has said it was not LEGAL.
Stop being so obtuse and face up to the IMMORALITY of it for a major international negotiator who's job it is to represent the American PEOPLE in the UN.

besides, they complained at the time the administration weren't helping the appointments committee -- http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Apr/20050407News019.asp
they were told they should co-operate, not complain -- http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-bush02.html
( and for neo-con-conspiracy theories this line was superb :) ''We have some serious problems in this country that must be addressed" A well known tactic, raise the spectre of FEAR to avoid debate )
then of course a few Democrats HAVE made their comments to the press - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050801/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bolton_quote_box_1

So by saying they should be on TV I suspect you're using FOX as your measuring stick. yeah, you're going to get LOTS of coverage there - NOT !! Besides, the "smart" move of also making 2 placements in national affairs will allow the media to focus their inches and minutes on those and let the Bolton one be forgotten !!

Really Fleet, the 3 links above took me all of 30 seconds to find.
I'm astounded that with th professed knowledge and exposure you say you have to the media and have cited in previous debates I was rather taken aback that you werent' abreast of the Democrat complaints on the issue.

Course "bias" may have something to do with it........ See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil :(

But please lets not get diverted by that side-road.
The LEGALITY is not in question - the intent of the Constitution is one point but more so the MORALITY. Let's get to that please.

Of course if you're usign info gleaned from another well-known-site then please desist. ( I had a check over there just in case, wow, the knowledge of the British health Service is ZERO, but they make comments about it :D ROFLMAO )

Fleet 500

08-08-2005, 02:06 PM

Same thing. If Bush acted "immorally" (which he didn't), the Democrats would be on TV all day long reminded everyone of it. And I mean on the liberal news stations, like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC.

Finding "a few" Democrats is not the same thing.

Again, regarding Bolton... the minority party's holding up the position of UN Ambassador for 5 months without letting the full Senate have an up or down vote is what is really immoral.

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 03:06 PM

Same thing. If Bush acted "immorally" (which he didn't), the Democrats would be on TV all day long reminded everyone of it. And I mean on the liberal news stations, like ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC.

Finding "a few" Democrats is not the same thing.
Did the comment about the way the media is manipualted get lost on you ?
or deliberately ignored perhaps :)

Again, regarding Bolton... the minority party's holding up the position of UN Ambassador for 5 months without letting the full Senate have an up or down vote is what is really immoral.
We already pointed out that the filibuster is LEGAL in Senate rules.
So it's OK for certian people (GWB) to do the legal but not moral thing but NOT OK for Senators to ?? Double standards, hypocrisy !!!
Please actually respond with FACTS rather than unsupported opinionated comments and provide backgroudn to the claims in the first link I'd provided - at least it will confirm that you'd bothered to read it :) That artcile makes it clear that the appointements committee were not getting the info they felt necessary to make a proposal. Hence why they didnt' do it. To then expect a Senate interested in representing the people who voted them to NOT take action to return the decision to that comittee is absurd. The second house in the UK often takes the action to return wrong laws and government deicisions to the parliament and back to comittees. It reeks that the word "co-operation" for current administration seems to mean "agreeing with them" arather than seeking compatibel compromise.
So rather than too-simplistic homilies repeated from propoganda circles. Let's have some decetn debate on this Fleet.
As MontyPython says, all you're doing is contradicting. Come on Fleet, PLEASE add value to the debate so it is explored fully. It's not as if you're expecting a Spanish Inquisition :D

Fleet 500

08-08-2005, 03:26 PM

Lol!
Looks who is contradicting!
First you criticize Bush for doing something which is legal, then you state that the Senate also did something legal.
But, you tag the name "immoral" on Bush but not the Senate!

In other words, the Senate had plenty of time to vote, but were held up by the liberal portion. So Bush made a recess appointment. Legal and moral.

Quiggs

08-08-2005, 03:38 PM

It's not as if you're expecting a Spanish Inquisition :D
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 04:25 PM

Lol!
Looks who is contradicting!
First you criticize Bush for doing something which is legal, then you state that the Senate also did something legal.
But, you tag the name "immoral" on Bush but not the Senate!
LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE :)

Go back and read. You just made yourself look really s***** !!!

I didnt' you know.

Seriously Fleet, you either don't read or dont' absorb written information.
Either that or they've "programmed" you real well to toe the party line :(

In other words, the Senate had plenty of time to vote, but were held up by the liberal portion. So Bush made a recess appointment. Legal and moral.
You have not responded to the points asked of you.
You've repeated the same comments with NO confirmation, NO contradictory evidence and no discernible application of intelligent discourse.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt, you ARE the weakest link. GOODBYE :)

spi-ti-tout

08-08-2005, 04:28 PM

Really Peter - I don't know WHY you bother :rolleyes:

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 04:28 PM

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Their prime weapon is STUPIDITY.
Stupidity and MANIPULATION ...
Their two prime weapons are stupidity, manipulation and avoiding facts.
...
They have THREE weapons.... stupidity, manipulation, avoiding facts and sides-stepping issues.
Allong with an unswerving devotion to President Bush.

FIVE WEAPONS.
But clearly they're not as bad as the weapons hidden in Iraq
...

All those weapons are in their armoury. Of these clearly HUMOUR aint' ONE :D

Quiggs

08-08-2005, 04:31 PM

Their prime weapon is STUPIDITY.
Stupidity and MANIPULATION ...
Their two prime weapons are stupidity, manipulation and avoiding facts.
...
They have THREE weapons.... stupidity, manipulation, avoiding facts and sides-stepping issues.
Allong with an unswerving devotion to President Bush.

FIVE WEAPONS.
But clearly they're not as bad as the weapons hidden in Iraq
...

All those weapons are in their armoury. Of these clearly HUMOUR aint' ONE :D
Best post evAr. I almost fell off my chair.

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 04:32 PM

Really Peter - I don't know WHY you bother :rolleyes:
I spent last night heckling half a dozen stand up comedians.

This is MUCH easier :)

Matra et Alpine

08-08-2005, 04:33 PM

Best post evAr. I almost fell off my chair.
Not the ....... COMFY CHAIR perchance ? :D

henk4

08-09-2005, 12:49 AM

henk, what it all boils down to is that every appointment Bush has made was within the laws of the Constitution.
If Bush had broken the Constitution, you can be sure the Democrats would be on TV 24/7 complaining about it! They're not.

Again you totally missed the point but one last effort and may be in more plain words: your "democracy" sucks. I would not want a system whereby my president can make appointments that require approval from my representative body, during a period when that body is offficially on holidays. Then such an appointment should be held up until the recess is over or the representatives should be called back form recess. Apparently during the recess period your democracy becomes a dictatorship.

Matra et Alpine

08-09-2005, 03:02 AM

henk4

08-09-2005, 03:32 AM

well to be fair Henk, AFAIK all our democracies allow this. Certainly in the UK it can happen.

BUT, it would NOT BE DONE except in national emergency.
No PM would try these tricks just to get a "buddy" in.

may be but our parliament has the right to reconvene during a recess in case the gvt was trying to play tricks.

Matra et Alpine

08-09-2005, 03:52 AM

may be but our parliament has the right to reconvene during a recess in case the gvt was trying to play tricks.
yes ours too.

not sure abotu US consitution ?

Fleet, let us know. COULD senate have chosen to reconvene or FORCED the appointment back to the comittee ? If NOT then how IS the power of a President controlled ??? Is "impeachment" the only option ? Isnt' there a "vote of no confidence" capability in US Senate/Congree ????

Fleet 500

08-09-2005, 07:28 PM

not sure abotu US consitution ?

Fleet, let us know. COULD senate have chosen to reconvene or FORCED the appointment back to the comittee ? If NOT then how IS the power of a President controlled ??? Is "impeachment" the only option ? Isnt' there a "vote of no confidence" capability in US Senate/Congree ????
I don't know, but I'll find out. :)

Matra et Alpine

08-10-2005, 12:37 AM

I don't know, but I'll find out. :)
cheers ... but please don't go "you know where" for the answer.
I'm still cleaning my underwear from reading about the NHS :D

Fleet 500

08-10-2005, 02:28 PM

cheers ... but please don't go "you know where" for the answer.
I'm still cleaning my underwear from reading about the NHS :D
Oh, you mean the site where the can back up what they say with legitimate sources? ;)

And the site in which if anyone makes the claim that the U.S. military lied, they make sure the accuser posts actual proof? ;)

Matra et Alpine

08-10-2005, 03:08 PM

Oh, you mean the site where the can back up what they say with legitimate sources? ;)
Go read the NHS thread.
It is all 100% distortion.
They woudlnt' know a healthe SERVICE if it jumped up and bit them in the ass :)

And the site in which if anyone makes the claim that the U.S. military lied, they make sure the accuser posts actual proof? ;)
AND DONT' GIVE THE POSTER TIME TO post THE TRUTH.

Living in fantasy land isnt' healthy Fleet.

You KNOW they banned me without letting me back up. You KNOW because I asked you to contact a couple of the guys to explain things. You KNOW and yet somehow are acting is if you didnt' ? NOT very nice really is that. Funny how you object strongly to people calling names and yet are more than willing to ACT 100 times worse :(

BTW, Tillmans' momwas on Radio 4 talkign abotu it. She described the TIMELINE of the communcations the family had AND tied that with the recorded KNOWLEDGE of the Army. They witheld information pertinent to the man at his memorial. Fascists were renowned for only believing the party line. Usually democratic (small d) intelligent people call those things lies.

Fleet 500

08-10-2005, 03:18 PM

Matra et Alpine

08-10-2005, 03:26 PM

Sorry, but you had your chance to explain on the other board.
Don't give me info- I wasn't in that debate.

They gave you plenty of time (and about 3 or 4 pages) for you to provide a link showing that the military lied. You never did.
RR.com is a very pro-military site and they don't want new members going on there making claims they can't back up!
You are talking BS Fleet and you know it.

Not in the debate is being dishonest and twisting the truth.
You WERE asked by me to communicate my inability to poast having been bounced by Hane because I kept posting additional information regarding the issues rather than rolling over to Republican-PR .

This was sent to you by PM ...

Fleet could you please do me one more favour ?

( I'm kind of using you as a virtual UN, hope that doesn't upset :) )

La Chevelure posted and I cant' post or PM him.
Could you please PM him on my behalf ?
Just thank him and say no problem that we shared anecdotes and analogies without any problems . The same things I was lambasted by hane for as "ramblings".
and tell him I'll see him in 12 days and continue our more sensible thread and keep clear of "others".

thanks Fleet.

PS: Your choice Fleet, but how about asking Hane to post the evidence of the PM's she says I received ?
and you replied ....

Fleet could you please do me one more favour ?

( I'm kind of using you as a virtual UN, hope that doesn't upset :) )

La Chevelure posted and I cant' post or PM him.
Could you please PM him on my behalf ?
Just thank him and say no problem that we shared anecdotes and analogies without any problems . The same things I was lambasted by hane for as "ramblings".
and tell him I'll see him in 12 days and continue our more sensible thread and keep clear of "others".

thanks Fleet.

PS: Your choice Fleet, but how about asking Hane to post the evidence of the PM's she says I received ?
Yes, I shall do that.
And I'll ask about Hane's PMs.

So come on Fleet, you NKEW the history of the ban and the REAL situation regarding me trygin to post there. Do you REALLY see the world differently as time passes or deliberately hiding from truth ??

And I see how you - like Hane - have by-passed the comment about Tillman's mom. Yeah, THAT's how they "own" people :D

Come on IF they are THAT good explain the NHS lies !!!

'Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!'

spi-ti-tout

08-10-2005, 03:30 PM

They gave you plenty of time (and about 3 or 4 pages) for you to provide a link showing that the military lied. You never did.
RR.com is a very pro-military site and they don't want new members going on there making claims they can't back up!
Did you read the whole thread Fleet? :)

Did you also read a thread where I was arguing with an idiot who failed to realize that 10 minutes away from him there might have been a maniac who wanted to kill him and the level of insecurity in America when he posted a picture of a small innocent Iranian boy with a toy gun asking me "what do you think of his mother behind him?"

Don't post rubbish. If you have something worthwile to say, say it. Otherwise don't bother.

Fleet 500

08-10-2005, 03:45 PM

Did Tillman's mother provide evidence showing the military lied?
Why did you fail to back up your claim on RR.com?

Matra et Alpine

08-10-2005, 04:16 PM

Did Tillman's mother provide evidence showing the military lied?
Why did you fail to back up your claim on RR.com?
Altogether now.
Would everyoen ELSE on UCP please tell Fleet the answer as I've already told him and it's not sinking in :(

oh dear, WHY is this so hard, Fleet, do you HAVE a dictionary anywhere ? Have you READ it ??

from www.dictionary.com
lie: Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

All the stuff written about him and the event, those speeches at his memorial when it was KNOWN he had been killed in FF !! They were meant to deceive, they were meant to give the wrong impression. Q-E-D !!!!

crisis

08-10-2005, 06:35 PM

Oh, you mean the site where the can back up what they say with legitimate sources? ;)

And the site in which if anyone makes the claim that the U.S. military lied, they make sure the accuser posts actual proof? ;)
And the site wher if anyone dares criticise a conservative leader, government or any of their actions they are immediately labelled "liberal" to marginalise their point of view. And the mindless dolts all agree, "yeah, yeah , liberal" as if that is enough explanation for everything, post trite little quotations and clever little pictures.
Their concept of truth is the truth as they see it through their blinkered, philistine, bigoted, ultra patriotic, right wing, Bush loving eyes.
It kind of colours their judgment. They behave like children when they are confronted with unpalatable facts and throw abuse at those who dare upset their precious little fantasy land.
They are nasty, nasty people and you would do well to steer clear of them my boy. ;)

henk4

08-10-2005, 11:38 PM

OK, Should the UN be disbanded?

clutch-monkey

08-10-2005, 11:49 PM

yes, i should be put in charge of the world

Fleet 500

08-11-2005, 01:36 PM

And the site wher if anyone dares criticise a conservative leader, government or any of their actions they are immediately labelled "liberal" to marginalise their point of view. And the mindless dolts all agree, "yeah, yeah , liberal" as if that is enough explanation for everything, post trite little quotations and clever little pictures.
Their concept of truth is the truth as they see it through their blinkered, philistine, bigoted, ultra patriotic, right wing, Bush loving eyes.
It kind of colours their judgment. They behave like children when they are confronted with unpalatable facts and throw abuse at those who dare upset their precious little fantasy land.
They are nasty, nasty people and you would do well to steer clear of them my boy. ;)
They don't mind criticism. That's why the liberal member known as "Curious" posts there often.
What they do mind is allegations with no facts to back it up.

Fleet 500

08-11-2005, 01:38 PM

Altogether now.
Would everyoen ELSE on UCP please tell Fleet the answer as I've already told him and it's not sinking in :(

oh dear, WHY is this so hard, Fleet, do you HAVE a dictionary anywhere ? Have you READ it ??

from www.dictionary.com
lie: Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

All the stuff written about him and the event, those speeches at his memorial when it was KNOWN he had been killed in FF !! They were meant to deceive, they were meant to give the wrong impression. Q-E-D !!!!
I don't know what was said in the PMs on that site between you and the moderators. I do know you were given several warnings about your debate method (making claims without sources to back them up) and your language. You ignored them.
So don't come crying to me that kicked you out!

Matra et Alpine

08-11-2005, 01:40 PM

You need to hit your record player on the side Fleet.

Iv'e provided the evidence and have rpeeated it HERE abotu Tillmans mothers comments. The reality is they only think truth comes from the organisations they support and the "truths" they want to hear.

Go back and read the dictionary entry for LIE :)

For example, the NHS thread. Malicious and sadly reflective of the general ability of partisan brainwashers to direct the unintelligent masses :D

Matra et Alpine

08-11-2005, 01:47 PM

I don't know what was said in the PMs on that site between you and the moderators.
erm, THAT is odd, Fleet.

As you DID say you woudl look into it for me and discuss it with them.

Or do I need to show you the PM you sent on THAT ??

Cearly I will as you show compulsive dishonesty tendencies :( See attached.
DID you or did you NOT do what you said you would - or was that also a lie ??

I do know you were given several warnings about your debate method (making claims without sources to back them up) and your language. You ignored them.
So don't come crying to me that kicked you out!
Wow, I think we shoudl stop until you get back on medication man !!!!!
All covered and all disproved.

Remeber when the word stupid was used to describe your posts in the past Fleet ?
You either KNOW you are lying or don't.
tell you what YOU put the label on your posts for me :)

Actually tell others as I was brought up to isolate obsessive cheats and liars. A wee block will save me the hassle of reading more mis-truths. But at least everyeon else will see what you're up to - tut, tut !!!!

oh and PS nobody's crygin. You are the one defending a bunch of reporbates and trygin to make it sound sensible :)

spi-ti-tout

08-11-2005, 01:51 PM

They don't mind criticism. That's why the liberal member known as "Curious" posts there often.
ROFL LMAO Crisis you just HAD to do it again didn't you? :D:D:D:

crisis

08-11-2005, 06:12 PM

ROFL LMAO Crisis you just HAD to do it again didn't you? :D:D:D:
Thats not me. Im not even interested in them anymore let alone curious. :D

Fleet 500

08-12-2005, 10:22 PM

oh and PS nobody's crygin. You are the one defending a bunch of reporbates and trygin to make it sound sensible :)
Okay, if you don't want to crying about your treatment at rr.com, then at least stop whining! All you do is keep mentioning that website (you know, the one that follows their own rules).

And if you want to bring up private messages...

Rockefella

08-12-2005, 10:42 PM

Okay, if you don't want to crying about your treatment at rr.com, then at least stop whining! All you do is keep mentioning that website (you know, the one that follows their own rules).

And if you want to bring up private messages...
I like the second PM where they say I WASN'T banned, although I was clearly banned for one-week by someone on that site.

And regarding that second PM, why is it that we ''can't say squat about the US Military?" I guess they were never taught the meaning of a fair debate.

Matra et Alpine

08-13-2005, 03:51 AM

Okay, if you don't want to crying about your treatment at rr.com, then at least stop whining! All you do is keep mentioning that website (you know, the one that follows their own rules).

And if you want to bring up private messages...
Thanks Fleet, to me and most of the other members you've just proven our point.

"stop whining" erm in those famous words YOU STARTED IT :D

MAN.

Oh by the way knowing that you didnt' bother doing anything about the many Robin Cook refernces and bok quotes I gave rr and YOU, then his recent sad loss to politics has meant that many of his speeches are available to listen to. I'd advice you ( and any pro-GWB-on-Iraq-war ) to listen to it. Robin Cook is a world recognised politician and debater. He doesn't piss about relying on speech writers. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4120000/newsid_4128400/bb_rm_4128426.stm and have your mind opened.

Many others in http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/robin_cook/bb_rm_default.stm

Rules -- is that the one where they demand absolute cast iron 100% proof of anything that is against their beliefs and ban if they dont' liek it and yet has posted the MOST CONTIRUTE RUBBISH abotu the British NHS ?? Let's leave the fantasy-land stuff out of UCP please - or accept that if you DO it will be lambasted for the mis-truths it may carry. Just stop bringing view from their up in here. back them up with independant evidence or desist.

spi-ti-tout

08-13-2005, 07:55 AM

Thanks for those PM's, MUCH appreciated :)
I found many interesting aspects I would love to discuss over a cup of tea.
Gives lot of insight into your wonderful moderator's amazing brainpower and great abilities.

I did strike Taz for calling Tx_Navy “my biatch”. Sorry, but Tx is a most wonderful person I have ever met blah blah blah…
Oh undoubtedly yes, Taz had to be banned for such a gruesome remark, after being told to "lick the soot off his Muslim master's boots" (which I a Muslim consider extremely insulting as well), by the very same (Tx). My God Fleet, we have such horrible members on this forum don't we? :eek: :rolleyes:

Anti-American
Anyone who has been here long enough will know that Matra is not what he was so stupidly called above. Yet she tries to hide behind the protective veil of "America" - that's the problem. If you're going to die, take everyone down with you, isn't thar right Fleet?
In her joy she even forgot to note the fact that taz was American anyway, and Matra wasn't directing lines of hate towards him.

I did not ban Rocky. He was full of crap
Yes, and the proof of this came from where............?

Yes I know you! You're the one with the African Parrot as his avatar. I have one and he has a bigger vocabulary than you do :D

crisis thinks he's smart in his phrasing to the point of being cutesy.
The Parrot being taught by "his" proud owned no doubt :rolleyes:

Really Fleet - I'm trying to open your eyes
Just WHAT are you following??
You're letting yourself be decieved and falling into a pit full of shit that will never end. OPNE YOUR EYES Fleet. That's all I can really asy. The rest is all up to you.

Rockefella

08-13-2005, 10:29 AM

This is like trying to turn someone on the KKK into a civil right's activist.

Fleet, you just don't get it. We're more than willing to accept defeat but the articles and arguments you provide are either biased, untrue, or drift away from the point of the debate. You and your friends at ronny.com seem to disprove all our articles somehow, just because you know the Republican gov't/media has nothing to combat our claims.

Hell, that Hane person banned me just because I questioned her debate skills by asking her to show me one post where she was wrong on a subject. I guess I crossed the line big-time there. :rolleyes:

Fleet 500

08-13-2005, 12:26 PM

I like the second PM where they say I WASN'T banned, although I was clearly banned for one-week by someone on that site.

And regarding that second PM, why is it that we ''can't say squat about the US Military?" I guess they were never taught the meaning of a fair debate.
That was a suspension, not a ban.

You're allowed to talk about the U.S. military- they just don't want anyone making claims about it they can't back up.

spi-ti-tout

08-13-2005, 01:54 PM

Did you even bother to read my post?

henk4

08-13-2005, 02:01 PM

Did you even bother to read my post?

what do you think? :D

Matra et Alpine

08-13-2005, 04:45 PM

That was a suspension, not a ban.

You're allowed to talk about the U.S. military- they just don't want anyone making claims about it they can't back up.
:cough: NHS :cough:

hypocrites.

What you REALLY mean is that they dont' want anyone making claims they dont' like.

We don't like that here, Fleet and that's why so often you get picked up on it.
We love debate and do it different from the 'other' way of debating.

So lets return to UCP.

I'd like to hear some critique or comments on Robin Cook ?????

Fleet 500

08-13-2005, 05:48 PM

"stop whining" erm in those famous words YOU STARTED IT :D
MAN.

Actually, you started this whole thing when you kept calling me a liar because of my posts (which included facts).
I merely suggested that if you don't believe the info I was posting to take it up with where I got some of the info.
You did, (or tried) but couldn't behave on their board (even with repeated warnings).

spi-ti-tout

08-13-2005, 06:11 PM

what do you think? :D
*Sigh*....another one down the drain.

Man, I'm getting too old for this :(

Matra et Alpine

08-13-2005, 06:22 PM

Actually, you started this whole thing when you kept calling me a liar because of my posts (which included facts).
I merely suggested that if you don't believe the info I was posting to take it up with where I got some of the info.
You did, (or tried) but couldn't behave on their board (even with repeated warnings).
First raised in post http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=353752&postcount=108 when you spouted cr@p about the downing street memo being discredited. I pointed out to you then that you were using the technique Hane employed. teh evidence of THAT act is plainly in sight. Iv'e already given the evidence to you and you still act "blind".
Are you relying on the comments by Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a who said that 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," He hasn't a clue, to "fix" a report has exactly the same meaning for all of us. BUT some folks will believe that interpretation so they dont' have to challenge the supreme leader :eek:

Fleet, seems you are taking the words of Hane AGAIN as gospel on the "kick" and the site on the "facts". ANSWR ME THIS ONE Q -- have you read the NHS post ? Pleae prove me wrong that I think you are avoiding truth because it highlights the bias everyoen else sees and you avoid ??

Go check out the posts at rr, man !!
It seems clear that you dont' read much there just as you do here when challenged on BS :)

I love the hypocrisy you stand by too.
So everyeon ELSE has to prove to YOU but you think it OK to expect folks to take opinion from biaed sites :eek:

Stop being a puppet and stand up for your own ideas and opinions with facts YOU have sourced and not extracted opinion of others and debates on UCP will get on better with you.

SO far you are 99.99999% owned !!!!

PS: Still waiting - HAVE you or have you NOT listened to Robin Cook speech and read on Robin Cook's comments re qar in Iraq ??

spi-ti-tout

08-13-2005, 06:34 PM

SO far you are 99.99999% owned !!!!
Correction Siyr, dezza new word iyn da town, tis cawled 'pw3nd' :cool:

crisis

08-14-2005, 05:56 PM

Thanks for those PM's, MUCH appreciated :)
I found many interesting aspects I would love to discuss over a cup of tea.
Gives lot of insight into your wonderful moderator's amazing brainpower and great abilities.

Oh undoubtedly yes, Taz had to be banned for such a gruesome remark, after being told to "lick the soot off his Muslim master's boots" (which I a Muslim consider extremely insulting as well), by the very same (Tx). My God Fleet, we have such horrible members on this forum don't we? :eek: :rolleyes:

Anyone who has been here long enough will know that Matra is not what he was so stupidly called above. Yet she tries to hide behind the protective veil of "America" - that's the problem. If you're going to die, take everyone down with you, isn't thar right Fleet?
In her joy she even forgot to note the fact that taz was American anyway, and Matra wasn't directing lines of hate towards him.

Yes, and the proof of this came from where............?

The Parrot being taught by "his" proud owned no doubt :rolleyes:

Really Fleet - I'm trying to open your eyes
Just WHAT are you following??
You're letting yourself be decieved and falling into a pit full of shit that will never end. OPNE YOUR EYES Fleet. That's all I can really asy. The rest is all up to you.

Nice one spi ti tout!

"You're allowed to talk about the U.S. military- they just don't want anyone making claims about it they can't back up."

Right on Fleet. Or use big words, "un Americanisms ( :D ), or insult their precious sensitivities. For a bunch of "defenderds of the realm" they sure ride roughshod over that freedom of speech thing you guys boar us all with all the time.

Rockefella

08-15-2005, 08:43 AM

That was a suspension, not a ban.

You're allowed to talk about the U.S. military- they just don't want anyone making claims about it they can't back up.
Fleet, a suspension is the same thing as a temporary ban, considering I had no access to www.ronny.losers.com (hah, that's genius) for a week. I never really made any claims, all I did was question that lady's credibility. I guess she either knew I had her pinned in the corner w/ that subject or they felt I was somehow crossing this infantile Republican line of ethics.

spi-ti-tout

08-15-2005, 09:12 AM

Nice one spi ti tout!
Thanks. A 40 year old being owned by a 14 year old is just.....uncomfortably bad, but it had to be done :D

crisis

08-15-2005, 07:29 PM

Thanks. A 40 year old being owned by a 14 year old is just.....uncomfortably bad but it had to be done :D
Well you could "own" your own site if youcould find any use for Ron.com. :D

spi-ti-tout

08-17-2005, 02:45 AM

Well you could "own" your own site if youcould find any use for Ron.com. :D
I don't have my own site - does that say anything? :D

Went there again, all they were talking about was the recent raised oil prices in The Netherlands and that recent political demonstrator in the US.

Fleet 500

08-22-2005, 06:15 PM

yes ours too.

not sure abotu US consitution ?

Fleet, let us know. COULD senate have chosen to reconvene or FORCED the appointment back to the comittee ? If NOT then how IS the power of a President controlled ??? Is "impeachment" the only option ? Isnt' there a "vote of no confidence" capability in US Senate/Congree ????
Okay, to answer your question (after checking history books and Internet research)...
A quick answer would be "no" and "no."

Once a recess appointment is made, it expires at the end of the following Congressional session. The Senate does not have the Constitutional authority to reconvene and force the appointment back to the committe. The Senate can impeach the appointee, but only if a certain criteria have been met (committed a crime of some sort). Congress has never impeached a Presidential appointee.

While the Senate and/or House can issue a "no confidence" resolution, it has no binding authority. A "no confidence" resolution has never been passed in the history of the U.S. Only impeachment will suffice.

More info:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm

Fleet 500

08-22-2005, 06:17 PM

Thanks. A 40 year old being owned by a 14 year old is just.....uncomfortably bad, but it had to be done :D
Really?
I pointed out that Bush was exercising his legal right just as many other Presidents have done. And you claim you "owned" me? LOL!

Fleet 500

08-22-2005, 06:20 PM

Nice one spi ti tout!
"You're allowed to talk about the U.S. military- they just don't want anyone making claims about it they can't back up."

Right on Fleet. Or use big words, "un Americanisms ( :D ), or insult their precious sensitivities. For a bunch of "defenderds of the realm" they sure ride roughshod over that freedom of speech thing you guys boar us all with all the time.
Maybe I should say it real simple so you can understand... they don't want allegations against the U.S. military which are not valid. Just like you wouldn't want someone posting untrue allegations against your country's military.

crisis

08-22-2005, 06:46 PM

Maybe I should say it real simple so you can understand... they don't want allegations against the U.S. military which are not valid. Just like you wouldn't want someone posting untrue allegations against your country's military.
The allegations were proven to be true. If you cant or wont understand or read what Matra posted it is your problem. Ron.com are a bunch of over patriotic, precious nazis who can not hear a bad word about the good ol, US of A. It is impossible to post an allegation agains the US , let alone the mlitary as nothing critical is ever valid in their red white and blue eyes.

http://members.aol.com/christhack/ostrich.gif

Fleet 500

08-22-2005, 07:05 PM

The allegations were proven to be true. If you cant or wont understand or read what Matra posted it is your problem. Ron.com are a bunch of over patriotic, precious nazis who can not hear a bad word about the good ol, US of A. It is impossible to post an allegation agains the US , let alone the mlitary as nothing critical is ever valid in their red white and blue eyes.

No, it isn't. The military withheld info pending an investigation, not to "cover anything up."

Just because you couldn't out-debate those at rr.com is no reason to call them names.
In fact, just for fun, I think I'll go back and read the posts where they destroyed your claims!

crisis

08-22-2005, 07:14 PM

No, it isn't. The military withheld info pending an investigation, not to "cover anything up."

No they wouldnt . They are beyond reproach. They are the United States Army.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/45/45_images/fullwideshot.jpg

Just because you couldn't out-debate those at rr.com is no reason to call them names.
In fact, just for fun, I think I'll go back and read the posts where they destroyed your claims!
Its hard to out debate people who refuse to let you post on their site. And I held out on retunring their insults until they spat the dummy.

Feel free to go back to their land. Give my regards to the Wizard. :D

http://www.encorerepco.org/images/Wizard%20of%20OZ%20063a.jpg

Matra et Alpine

08-22-2005, 07:56 PM

No, it isn't. The military withheld info pending an investigation, not to "cover anything up."
They KNEW it was fratricide BEFORE the memorial ceremony and chose not to tell the family.

NOT telling the truth IS lying, Fleet.
That is the fundamental issue 'some' of theme didnt' grasp. except of course when they lambast Clinton for his "i did not have sexual relations" comment :D

Just because you couldn't out-debate those at rr.com is no reason to call them names.
In fact, just for fun, I think I'll go back and read the posts where they destroyed your claims!
For once, try to do it with intelligence and an open-mind and evaluate the comments of the "believers". There's a lot of "we say it's so, so it is" mindset !!!!

spi-ti-tout

08-22-2005, 08:56 PM

And you claim you "owned" me? LOL!
Not you man, Hane - who was I talking about in that post? :p

PWN3D :D

There was rubbish about taz, Matra, Crisis, Rock and me. Couldn't resist telling her she was wrong. Go read the post again.

taz_rocks_miami

08-22-2005, 09:11 PM

No they wouldnt . They are beyond reproach. They are the United States Army.

Ah Crisis...the pic...those are Marines, not Army soldiers.

crisis

08-22-2005, 11:49 PM

Ah Crisis...the pic...those are Marines, not Army soldiers.
Indeed. My bad!

Fleet 500

08-23-2005, 12:24 PM

They KNEW it was fratricide BEFORE the memorial ceremony and chose not to tell the family.

They (those on rr.com) asked you to provide a link backing up your claim.

Matra et Alpine

08-23-2005, 12:40 PM

They (those on rr.com) asked you to provide a link backing up your claim.
Sorry ?
I provided a quote FROM THE DOD web site which DID state when thwy knew it was fratricide.}
This pre-dated the memorial by a couple of days.
But, 'hane' has to have it written by a republican before it's believed :(
It was about then the 'ban' threats started getting vicious because I'd got hane with her pants down !!!

Fleet 500

08-23-2005, 02:01 PM

Sorry ?
I provided a quote FROM THE DOD web site which DID state when thwy knew it was fratricide.}
This pre-dated the memorial by a couple of days.
But, 'hane' has to have it written by a republican before it's believed :(
It was about then the 'ban' threats started getting vicious because I'd got hane with her pants down !!!
Some good points rr.com member "Liberty" made...
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/003416/p/1.html

It is SOP (standard operating procedure) not to say anything specific until an investigation is done.

(Regarding the BBC link you posted):
Where in the BBC article is it stated that the military lied? The Tillman family requested that the report on the details of Cpl. Tillman's death be kept secret- the BBC article never mentioned that fact.

Also regarding the BBC article:
Nowhere did Lt. Col. Matthew actually say that Tillman was killed by enemy fire. In fact, another journalist says the following, "One month after his death, the army has provided no details of how Tillman was killed."
How could they have "lied" if they didn't release info?

Matra et Alpine

08-23-2005, 02:56 PM

Some good points rr.com member "Liberty" made...
[url].....
How could they have "lied" if they didn't release info?
oh dear. STILL struggling - as Liberty stumbled on - with the concept that choosing to NOT tell all available information IS LYING.

But hey, lets leave that nonsense over there and not bring it here.

You and I have already gone over the ground.
There wer FACTS known and now widely accepted that were withheld.
There are no reasons WHY it should have been witheld from the family - ie oeprational dangers - and so it WAS a "choice" made by someone to not tell the truth.

Let's repeat it ...... NOT TELLING THE TRUTH is ....... LYING !!!!

crisis

08-23-2005, 05:51 PM

Some good points rr.com member "Liberty" made...
http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/003416/p/1.html

Sorry, either your membership has not yet been approved or the board administrators have removed your ability to post to this board. We cannot allow you to perform this action as a result.

Oh dear, the frightened little darlings have put up a barrier. Kind of typical neocon fortress strategy eh. Cut yourself off from that which you cant control. :D

spi-ti-tout

08-23-2005, 06:24 PM

Sorry, either your membership has not yet been approved or the board administrators have removed your ability to post to this board. We cannot allow you to perform this action as a result.

Oh dear, the frightened little darlings have put up a barrier. Kind of typical neocon fortress strategy eh. Cut yourself off from that which you cant control. :D
Meh join again, I tried and it worked. Made one resonable post about the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius that they were talking about in the Debate Forum and then never wetn back, they probably banned me again anyway :p

crisis

08-23-2005, 06:47 PM

Meh join again, I tried and it worked. Made one resonable post about the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius that they were talking about in the Debate Forum and then never wetn back, they probably banned me again anyway :p
I dont want to go back. I dont like them very much. ;)

Fleet 500

08-23-2005, 08:29 PM

oh dear. STILL struggling - as Liberty stumbled on - with the concept that choosing to NOT tell all available information IS LYING.

Let's repeat it ...... NOT TELLING THE TRUTH is ....... LYING !!!!
Not when the official policy is to not say anything specific until an investigation is completed.
And what do you say about the fact that Tillman's family requested the military NOT release info regarding his death... is the Tillman family lying, too? :rolleyes:

Once again... repeat, Matra... not releasing info is not lying!

And where was that again where the BBC had a quote about the military lying?

No wonder they banned you at rr.com- you STILL can't back up your claims! :)

Fleet 500

08-23-2005, 08:31 PM

Sorry, either your membership has not yet been approved or the board administrators have removed your ability to post to this board. We cannot allow you to perform this action as a result.

Oh dear, the frightened little darlings have put up a barrier. Kind of typical neocon fortress strategy eh. Cut yourself off from that which you cant control. :D
Yeah, real "frightened!" They successfully countered and debated every post you made there.

spi-ti-tout

08-23-2005, 09:39 PM

Yeah, real "frightened!" They successfully countered and debated every post you made there.
LMAO. I actually laughed at this one.

Fleet 500

08-23-2005, 10:31 PM

LMAO. I actually laughed at this one.
Why? It's true. ;)

crisis

08-24-2005, 12:19 AM

Yeah, real "frightened!" They successfully countered and debated every post you made there.
Follow the Yellow Brick Road.

crisis

08-24-2005, 12:24 AM

Hey Fleet, how about this neocon nut.

"Pat Robertson, the conservative Christian broadcaster, has attracted attention over the years for lambasting feminists, "activist" judges, the United Nations and Disneyland."

"Robertson Suggests U.S. Assassinate ChavezNow Mr. Robertson has set off an international firestorm by saying on his television show that the United States should kill the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, a leftist whose country has the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East."

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Mr. Robertson said Monday on his show, "The 700 Club." "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

I believe some neocons site Saddams attempt on Snr Bush's life was a legitimate enough reason for the second invasion.

"Vice President José Vicente Rangel of Venezuela said: "This is a huge hypocrisy to maintain an antiterrorist line and at the same time have such terrorist statements as these made by Christian preacher Pat Robertson coming from the same country."

"Mr. Rumsfeld dismissed Mr. Robertson's remark on assassination, saying: "Certainly it's against the law. Strong words!
Our department doesn't do that type of thing." cough, bullsh!t, cough, He added, "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."

"Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, called Mr. Robertson's comments "inappropriate."

"Mr. Robertson, who is 75, ran for president as a Republican in 1988. He has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush ."
"Bernardo Álvarez, the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, said: "Mr. Robertson has been one of the president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."

"Some of Mr. Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments. The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law." Oh yeah, there is that too!

"It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies," Mr. Cizik added. "

"But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying they were too busy to comment." with all that preparation for the second coming and all. :rolleyes:

"The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate, just as it did when Janet Jackson's breast was exposed in the Super Bowl broadcast in 2004. "This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame," Mr. Jackson said."
I agree a lot more! :rolleyes:

Someone better fond these guys some reality! :D

I bet Hane could outdebate me here and convince me this religious extremist is ok because he is a conservative too!

Matra et Alpine

08-24-2005, 02:37 AM

Not when the official policy is to not say anything specific until an investigation is completed.
And what do you say about the fact that Tillman's family requested the military NOT release info regarding his death... is the Tillman family lying, too? :rolleyes:
Can I have proof of that please ?

Once again... repeat, Matra... not releasing info is not lying!
Strange. A previous time you said that I gave you the dictionary entry and you went quiet. Did you hope by ignoring the truth you could make it disappear - oooooh sounds familiar.

Find me a DEFINITION of lying which does NOT include deliberate evasion of the truth ??

waiting ..............

:D

And where was that again where the BBC had a quote about the military lying?

No wonder they banned you at rr.com- you STILL can't back up your claims! :)
Quite the opposite, Fleet. YOU have shown you can't follow simple points made in posts. ( I'm still waiting .... :D )

I see you didnt' read the first post at the time. Your blind neo-con friends have you well "trained" ( it used to be called brain-washing by Communists :) )
WHAT I pasted from the BBC report was ..
"US army officials withheld information about the death of NFL star turned soldier Pat Tillman, a US military investigation has reportedly found.
Tillman died in Afghanistan in 2004 and for weeks afterwards US army officials said he was killed by enemy fire.
But army chiefs knew he had in fact been shot by fellow US troops, a report carried by the Washington Post says. "

THAT was factual. It was truth and is now confirmed as truth.

You lose again. Can you just drop it before you spin into another debate-death-spiral. !!!!

PS: still waiting ..... got that description of lying that says deliberately withholding the truth isn't ???? ( with the possible exception of national security )

Fleet 500

08-24-2005, 12:31 PM

Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
It sounds like you are already there so I don't want to crowd you out. ;)

Fleet 500

08-24-2005, 12:38 PM

WHAT I pasted from the BBC report was ..
"US army officials withheld information about the death of NFL star turned soldier Pat Tillman, a US military investigation has reportedly found.
Tillman died in Afghanistan in 2004 and for weeks afterwards US army officials said he was killed by enemy fire.
But army chiefs knew he had in fact been shot by fellow US troops, a report carried by the Washington Post says. "

THAT was factual. It was truth and is now confirmed as truth.

You lose again. Can you just drop it before you spin into another debate-death-spiral. !!!!

Withheld information AT THE REQUEST OF THE FAMILY.
Matra, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Sorry, but you lose.

Fleet 500

08-24-2005, 12:41 PM

Can I have proof of that please ?

Strange. A previous time you said that I gave you the dictionary entry and you went quiet. Did you hope by ignoring the truth you could make it disappear - oooooh sounds familiar.

Find me a DEFINITION of lying which does NOT include deliberate evasion of the truth ??

waiting ..............

:D

Following standard operating procedures (SOP) is NOT lying. Only in your mind it is!

If I can get my hands on some sort of military rules book, I'll be glad to post the above part here.

Matra et Alpine

08-24-2005, 02:05 PM

Withheld information AT THE REQUEST OF THE FAMILY.
As already requested post me the EVIDENCE of that !!

Matra, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Sorry, but you lose.
What ARE you smoking ?
Washington Post : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200865.html
"Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men."

I'm waiting for you to FOR ONCE actually present evidence that isnt' the opinion of your neo-con puppet masters :D

Man this is starting to hurt, seriosuly Fleet, you should limit your posting or we'll ALL die of hysteria !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Matra et Alpine

08-24-2005, 02:07 PM

Following standard operating procedures (SOP) is NOT lying. Only in your mind it is!

If I can get my hands on some sort of military rules book, I'll be glad to post the above part here.
It WOUDL be interestign to get a fact from you for once.

Let me REMIND you though that you WILL find it. It's in most forces standing orders and why everyoen has to sign the official secrets act. BUT it's intended to protect the operational status and lives of forces. It's NOT about protecting "face" or avoiding "embarrasmsnet" at the murder of the governments poster-boy :(

Fleet 500

08-24-2005, 08:30 PM

As already requested post me the EVIDENCE of that !!

What ARE you smoking ?
Washington Post : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200865.html
"Immediately, the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman's family and the public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his fellow Rangers. After a public memorial service, at which Tillman received the Silver Star, the Army told Tillman's family what had really happened, that he had been killed by his own men."

I'm waiting for you to FOR ONCE actually present evidence that isnt' the opinion of your neo-con puppet masters :D

Man this is starting to hurt, seriosuly Fleet, you should limit your posting or we'll ALL die of hysteria !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have failed again to provide a quote in which a military official said it was enemy fire. Please give the actual quote where the military said he was killed by enemy fire.

We did hear that his death may have been caused by friendly fire days after it occurred. I remember when it happened.

Also, consider this quote:
"While there was no specific finding of fault, the investigation results indicate that Corporal Tillman probably died as a result of *friendly fire* while his unit was engaged in combat with enemy forces."
- Lt. General Philip Kensinger Jr.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-05-29-tillman-death_x.htm

crisis

08-24-2005, 11:57 PM

It sounds like you are already there so I don't want to crowd you out. ;)
See Bush is coming out of his holiday to try to convince the US people that black is actually white by creating his own truth. It appears a typical conservative method of saying one thing even when the opposite is true. You and your mates at RR.com have it nailed. :D
Looks as though he is loosing support from thinking Americans and will have to do with the hard core morons who wouldnt care what he did as long as he told them it was ok.

Matra et Alpine

08-25-2005, 01:33 AM

You have failed again to provide a quote in which a military official said it was enemy fire. Please give the actual quote where the military said he was killed by enemy fire.
AND you prove again the loose-minded-debating skills :(
The record now shows they KNEW it was FF from hist first cries.
The representatives of the forces and the government did NOT let this be known.
As was pointed out on your wet-dreams-forum, even 'hane' justified by asking "have you ever told a little white lie" - so even you stand alone in thinking it was the whole truth !!!
and 'liberty' quoted "Army had decided not to comment on Tillman's death".
THAT is hiding truth, hiding truth is lying.

We did hear that his death may have been caused by friendly fire days after it occurred. I remember when it happened.
Can you align that view with the report FROM THE ARMY in June where their own investigation said The Army determined almost immediately after Tillman's death that he had been killed inadvertently by fellow Rangers in a wild spree of gunfire in a remote canyon near the Pakistani border, according to the latest Army investigation, described by officials last month. It found that the Army kept the fact secret from his family and the public for weeks and even destroyed evidence, the officials said[/quote]

Also, consider this quote:
"While there was no specific finding of fault, the investigation results indicate that Corporal Tillman probably died as a result of *friendly fire* while his unit was engaged in combat with enemy forces."
- Lt. General Philip Kensinger Jr.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-05-29-tillman-death_x.htm
Thank you as AGAIN you actually post something which CONFIRMS the point you're trying to oppose :)
THAT report is ONE MONTH later.
The memorial service and burials had all happened by then,
The tearful eulogies and tug-of-heart-strings had already been played out by the military and political pupet masters :(

FINALLY telling some truth does not mean that what came before is no longer a lie you know --- or do you :eek:

Fleet 500

08-25-2005, 02:40 PM

Again, Matra, unless you can post a credible link in which a military official (not a reporter) is quoted saying that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, there is no use discussing this further.

Fleet 500

08-25-2005, 02:43 PM

See Bush is coming out of his holiday to try to convince the US people that black is actually white by creating his own truth. It appears a typical conservative method of saying one thing even when the opposite is true. You and your mates at RR.com have it nailed. :D
Looks as though he is loosing support from thinking Americans and will have to do with the hard core morons who wouldnt care what he did as long as he told them it was ok.
Lol. What "holiday?" If you had any knowledge about it, you would know that no U.S. President is really ever on a "holiday." Unlike you and I, they can't turn off their cellphone and not think about their job. U.S. Presidents are working wherever they are.
A "holiday!" LOL!

BTW, where did you get the idea that I agree with everything that is said on rr.com? I also post at a few Cadillac boards, but I don't agree with everything those members say.

Matra et Alpine

08-25-2005, 04:52 PM

Again, Matra, unless you can post a credible link in which a military official (not a reporter) is quoted saying that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, there is no use discussing this further.
repeat ....

Lies are equally the omission of truth :)

I think you shoudl attend local school English classes !!!!

Fleet 500

08-25-2005, 04:59 PM

repeat ....

Lies are equally the omission of truth :)

I think you shoudl attend local school English classes !!!!
Again, unless you can post an actual quote of a military official saying that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, there is no reason discussing this further.

Matra et Alpine

08-25-2005, 05:12 PM

Again, unless you can post an actual quote of a military official saying that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, there is no reason discussing this further.
correct as you are avoiding the ENGLISH definitinos in dictionaries - you were cited them.

You dont' want to face truth or don't know it - probably why you dont know what a lie is and dont see anythgin wrong with a certain you-know-who and everything wrong with his predecesor :D

crisis

08-25-2005, 05:29 PM

Lol. What "holiday?" If you had any knowledge about it, you would know that no U.S. President is really ever on a "holiday." Unlike you and I, they can't turn off their cellphone and not think about their job. U.S. Presidents are working wherever they are.
A "holiday!" LOL!
Poor old conservatives. Always black and white.
How do you explain this postcard he sent me. :D

http://www.photographyvanuatu.com/images/breakas-beach-resort-vanuat.jpg

BTW, where did you get the idea that I agree with everything that is said on rr.com? I also post at a few Cadillac boards, but I don't agree with everything those members say.
I get the impression all radical conservatives believe everything their president says. As long as they dont have to think about issues themselves they are happy to swallow whatever they are told. After all its only being patriotic.

Fleet 500

08-25-2005, 07:06 PM

Poor old conservatives. Always black and white.

I get the impression all radical conservatives believe everything their president says. As long as they dont have to think about issues themselves they are happy to swallow whatever they are told. After all its only being patriotic.
I guess a poor reply is better than none at all. :D

Where did you get the idea that I am a radical conservative?
I don't agree with Bush on everything. I've said that here before, so you're wrong about that.
I don't swallow what I'm told. If there were a Democrat in the 2000 or 2004 elections equal to Bush (like another Harry Truman type) I may have voted for the Democrat.

Fleet 500

08-25-2005, 07:08 PM

correct as you are avoiding the ENGLISH definitinos in dictionaries - you were cited them.

You dont' want to face truth or don't know it - probably why you dont know what a lie is and dont see anythgin wrong with a certain you-know-who and everything wrong with his predecesor :D
Unless you can post an actual quote in which a military official (not a reporter) said that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, I'm not going to bother to respond to your posts which don't answer my question.

spi-ti-tout

08-25-2005, 09:58 PM

How do you explain this postcard he sent me. :D
No "bombs" attached?? :D

Niko_Fx

08-25-2005, 10:24 PM

I always see him in his ranch riding a horse and having fun for weeks, I guess Fox news doesn't show that.

henk4

08-25-2005, 10:28 PM

I always see him in his ranch riding a horse and having fun for weeks, I guess Fox news doesn't show that.

those are his contemplative periods, he re-emerges from those refreshed and with brand new ideas on how to stimulate fear in his country.

spi-ti-tout

08-25-2005, 10:43 PM

crisis

08-25-2005, 10:43 PM

I guess a poor reply is better than none at all. :D
Its hard to give a decent reply to a poor statement. ;)

Where did you get the idea that I am a radical conservative?
I don't agree with Bush on everything. I've said that here before, so you're wrong about that.
I don't swallow what I'm told. If there were a Democrat in the 2000 or 2004 elections equal to Bush (like another Harry Truman type) I may have voted for the Democrat.
I feel another poor reply coming on.

crisis

08-25-2005, 10:47 PM

No "bombs" attached?? :D
I like the assumption that a "Holiday" was supposed to mean something like that. When I go on "holiday" during the school holidays it is no holiday!

Matra et Alpine

08-26-2005, 02:19 AM

Unless you can post an actual quote in which a military official (not a reporter) said that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, I'm not going to bother to respond to your posts which don't answer my question.
No problem Fleet.

I'm OK that you need to use that excuse to avoid answering the questiuons asked of you and that you dont' comprehend English enough to actually grasp the difference.

If your world is only made up of geniuses and morons, you're not a genius. Now see, I never actually WROTE "you are a moron" and yet you and everyone else sees what's being said. Does THAT example show the difference betweeen a truth and a "lie" ??

So keep quiet until you start ANSWERING questions IS best as whilst YOU are repeating the brain-washing I'm repeating facts on the English language :D

Matra et Alpine

08-26-2005, 02:58 AM

WOW ! I wonder if those who coplained about "filibuster" in the Choice of Bolton will have anything to say about the 750 CHANGES propsoed on the UN 60th anniversary summit.
Hre was an opportunity to show how to work in harmony. To replace/remove so many of the hoeps for the futures is an extremem arrogance.
I'm sure many folsk ( we know some :) ) will hail this because of whipped up anti-UN sentiment.
BUT look at the list of things the UN and US are seeing diffrent in the future !! THe nuclear and global warming stance shoudl be enough for censure !!!!

This will in all likelihood brign the UN to an end or reduce it to a penniless, pointless group. If it does, I predict when the perpetrators of this crime reach a cycle in ther nation when they need support ehy may rue not havign the UN to provide aid and assistance :(